
    Samuel Wells et al. against Joseph Tryon et al.
    
    Nov. 1806.
    A copy of ⅝ -certificate of surTe_Vj SI-gne(j ⅛⅞ and E. F. Committee, and Certified to be a true eopy by G. H. Register, is not admissible in evidence, in an action of ejectment, to prove the plaintiff's title.
    THIS was an action of ejectment. The defendants , , , „ . ..... ... pleaded, severally, no wrong or disseisin; and issue was dosed to the jury.
    
      Brace, for the plaintiffs,
    to prove their title, offered in evidence a writing, purporting to be a copy of a certificate of survey, signed “ Thomas Wells, Surveyor,” and K Thomas Hollister and Jonathan Hale, Committee.” It was certified to be a true copy of record by “ Josiah Hale, Register
    
    
      E. Perkins and Z. H. Smith, for the defendants,
    objected to the admission of this paper in evidence to the jury. The statute of 1723 authorized the proprie*-tors of common or undivided lands to hold meetings, to choose their clerk, and to keep records. But the paper offered does not appear to be a copy of any record of the proprietors, nor to be certified by their clerk.
    The counsel for the plaintiffs remarked, in reply, that there is now no such body of men as the “ proprietors of common and undivided lands.” They may have transferred their rights to the towns; and if so, the town registrar Is the proper officer to certify the copy.
    
      
       Entitled “ An act for the better establishing and confirmation of the titles of land anciently obtained in townships, according to the manner or custom heretofore used; and for preventing contentions about the same,” Tit. *J7. c. 10.
    
   By the Court.

The certificate offered is a proper subject of the proprietors. The town could not make the survey. But it does not appear by whom the survey was made, or recorded; or by a registrar of what body the copy was certified. It is not proper to send a paper to the jury under so much uncertainty. It is, therefore, inadmissible.  