
    John A. Sheldon versus John Frink Junior.
    The discontinuance of an action entered in court, must be proved by the record or an authenticated transcript.
    Assumpsit on the following written promise of the defendant:— “I hereby agree .with John A. Sheldon to pay one half of the taxable costs in the suit commenced by him against me at the Hampden court in March current, he withdrawing said suit and making no further costs thereon.” On the trial of the present action, in the Court of Common Pleas, before Strong J., the plaintiff offered to prove by the testimony of Augustus Collins, his attorney in the suit in Hampden, that that action was withdrawn according to the contract, and that “ neither party ” was entered in the docket in that county. The judge decided that these facts could not be proved by the testimony of Collins, but must be proved by a copy of the record, and he directed a nonsuit; to which decision and direction the plaintiff excepted.
    
      Jones, for the plaintiff,
    cited as to the admissibility of the testimony, 3 Stark. Ev. '1044 and note 1 ; Foster v. Trull, 12 Johns. R. 456 ; Hinman v. Brees, 13 Johns. R. 529.
    
      Sept. 98d,
    
    
      
      Sept. 28th.
    
    Byington, contra,
    
    cited 1 Stark. Ev. 150, 151, 250 3 Stark. Ev. 1043 ; Scott v. Clare, 3 Campb. 236 ; Taylor v. Henry, 2 Pick. 401 ; Judge of Probate v. Briggs, 3 New Hampsli. Rep. 309 ; Rhind v. Wilkinson, 2 Taunt. 237.
    The case was continued nisi.
    
   Per Curiam.

The exception in the present case is founded upon a rule strictly technical; still it is a well settled rule, founded in considerations of general expediency, that the judg ments and proceedings of a court of record must be proved by the record, or an authenticated transcript. The plaintiff’s case required him to show that a final judgment had been entered in the action in question, pending in another county. The evidence by the testimony of a witness, might have been very satisfactory in the particular case ; but by the general rulé, adopted for general convenience, we think it was inadmissible and was rightly rejected. The exception is overruled, and the judgment of the C. C. P. affirmed. 
      
       See Webb v. Alexander, 7 Wend. 281
     