
    Villee v. Commonwealth.
    
      An action of debt was brought against the administratrix of a surety on the bond of a guardian, and a plea of non est factum entered. Plaintiff, offered in evidence the records of the orphans’ court showing a settlement of a former guardian’s account and a decree of the court directing the former guardian to pay over to the present guardian, and, after proving that the guardian’s bond was duly filed among the records of the orphans’ court, offered it in evidence. It was signed by H. W. Villee but recited “H. W. Wille ” asoné of the sureties. Held that the bond was admissible.
    May 17, 1888.
    Error, No. 321, Jan. T. 1888, to C. P. Lancaster Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff in an action of debt by the Commonwealth for the use of H. C. Gemperling, guardian of Lilian Swenk against Sarah A. Villee, executrix of H. W. Villee, deceased, at Sept. T. 1886, No. 37. Trunkey ■and Sterrett, JJ., absent.
    The action was brought on a guardian’s bond, originally against •all of the obligors, but the record was amended by striking out all but the above named. The plea was non est factum.
    At the trial, before Patterson, J., the plaintiff offered in evidence the records of the orphans’ court showing the account of the former guardian and a decree of the court directing the former .guardian to pay over by the present guardian. The plaintiff also offered in evidence a bond reciting that George S. Danner, W. A. Iteber, “ H. W. Wille,” of Lancaster City, Pa., and S. J. Hamilton were held and firmly bound to the Commonwealth for the use, etc., ■conditioned for the faithful execution of the guardianship of Geo. S. Danner. The bond was signed by G. S. Danner, W. N. Reber, H. W. Villee and S. J. Hamilton.
    It appeared from the evidence that the bond was found amongst the records of the orphans’ court of Lancaster Co., where it was ■filed Aug. 19, 1876. A witness testified that there was only one person of the name of H. W. Villee in Lancaster. The court •admitted the bond in evidence, saying “ we think it is competent and therefore we admit it.”
    
      The defendant then called various witnesses to whom he proposed this question : “ Q. I desire to ask this witness whether he is familiar with the hand-writing of H. W. Yillee, and whether in his opinion the name signed to this bond is in his hand-writing, and whether he is familiar with his hand-writing, and has frequently seen him write his signature ?”
    Objected to by the plaintiff’s counsel generally, and especially on the ground that the rules of court require notice to be given that they intend to prove a forgery.
    Objection sustained; offer disallowed and exception.
    The rule of court above referred to is not printed in the paper books.
    The court charged as follows: “ There is nothing before the jury but this bond, and the calculation is so and so. You will find first for the amount of the penalty, and afterward assess the damages, whatever you find due on the former guardian’s account; and we have looked at it, and find it is $395.82.”
    Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff.
    
      The assignments of error specified the action of the court, 1, “ in admitting the bond in evidence on mere proof of its being filed among records of office of orphans’ court, without proof of the signature of IT. W. Yillee, saying, ‘We think it is competent, and therefore we admit it.’ ” 2, “ in admitting the bond without proof that the decedent, whose executrix is defendant, was the H. W. Yillee whose name appears in the bond, there being a variance between party named and the signature, party in bond being H. W. Wille and the alleged signature that of H. W. Yillee; ” 3, “ in excluding the offers of defendant to prove that alleged signature in the bond was not that of H. W. Yillee, the defendant; ” 4, in directing judgment for plaintiff, quoting the charge.
    
      A. C. Reinoehl, for defendant in error.
    Under the plea of non est factum, the plaintiff was bound to prove the execution of the bond. Ziegler v. Sprenkle, 7 W. & S. 180; Smith v. Weld, 2 Pa. 54; Brobst v. Welker, 8 Pa. 467.
    On the other hand, while the plaintiff is inquired to make out a case before asking for a recovery, the defendant is allowed to give evidence to show mat bond was never executed. Schuylkill Co. v. Copley, 67 Pa. 389.
    The claim of plaintiff below that by rule of court notice is required when forgery is intended to be proved by defendant, does not apply to executors, as the rule of court will show.
    The court seems to have been governed by the opinion that the bond in question was an office bond, which has sometimes been admitted to be an exception to the law requiring proof of execution. See 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 573. But if this exception were well established, which it is not, it would not apply to this case. The identity of the pai’ty was not established.
    
      B. F. Davis, for defendant in error.
    The bond is a paper in the case, and the “ papers in the case are the record.” Erb v. Scott, 14 Pa. 20; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 573; Scott on Intestate Law, 2d ed., pages 196-197.
    In theory, the record imports absolute verity, and, as a general rule, should be so regarded in practice. Rice v. Constein, 89 Pa. 477; Numbers v. Shelley, 78 Pa. 426.
    There is a strong presumption in favor of a record, after lapse of considerable time, even if irregularly kept. McFate’s Ap., 14 W. N. C. 543 ; Shaw v. Boyd, 12 Pa. 215.
    A record cannot be contradicted, and must be tried by itself when in existence. Adams v. Betz, 1 Watts, 425.
    Parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict a record. Hoffman v. Coster, 2 Wh. 453; Graham v. Smith, 25 Pa. 325; McMicken v. Com., 58 Pa. 223; Furst et al. v. Ayers et al., 2 W. N. C. 722 ; Withers v. Livezey, 1 W. & S. 433; Coffman v. Hampton, 2 W. & S. 377.
    The plea of non est factum was not applicable to this case. Morris v. Gilbraith, 8 Watts, 166.
    In the case in hand, as there was a decree of the orphans’ court directing Danner, the guardian, to pay over the money to his successor, Gemperline;, the only defence could be payment. Com. v. Gracey, 96 Pa. 70.
    It is not necessary that names of obligors should be recited in the body of the bond. Leith v. Bush, 61 Pa. 395; Kimely v. Shenberger, 7 Watts, 193.
    The names of the sureties might have been omitted from the body of bond and, if necessary, the blanks could have been filled up on the trial. Hutz et al. v. Com., 3 Grant, 61.
    Oct. 1, 1888.
   Per Curiam :

The third assignment of error not being stated according to rnle, cannot be considered, and the others set out nothing by which the court below can be convicted of error.

Judgment affirmed.  