in the fire proof buildings, erected by vir-
tue of that act, free of rent. Common-
wealth v. The Commissioners of Philadel
phia county.
601

5. The sheriff is entitled to a fee of $150
in a prosecution for an offence not capital,
in which the grand jury have returned the
bill ignoramus.

ibid.
6. He is not entitled to a fee of 12 1-2 cents,
for every criminal cause called in Court.
ibid.
7. Nor to any commission on the sum of four
dollars, paid to him for the use of the
county, in every verdict in a civil action.

ibid.
8. The sheriff is responsible to the county
treasurer, for the sum of four dollars, on
each verdict, in a civil suit, if it is lost
through his negligence; but in case of
insolvency or loss, without the neglect of
the sheriff, he is not responsible. ibid.

1. Where a levy on land, is made by virtue
of a fieri facias, after which an inquisition
is held, and the land condemned, and a
venditioni is issued, but countermanded by
the plaintiff, who receives the debt and
costs of the defendant, the sheriff is enti-
tled to the same commissions as if the land
was sold. Middleton v. Summers. 549
2. The sheriff is entitled to the fee of three
dollars, for summoning the jury, taking
the inquisition, and making return thereof,
but he is not entitled to 150 more, for
making the levy, nor to 1 20 for noti-
fying the defendant, of the time and place
of the inquisition.
ibid.
3. The sheriff may receive 50 cents for each
juror, who holds an inquisition on a real es-
tate, but is accountable to him for it. ibid.
4. Under the act of 24th March, 1812, the
sheriff is entitled to a room for his office,

SHIPPER.
See FREIGHT, 1, 2.

SLANDER.

STATEMENT.

1. A statement under the act of 21st March,
1806, is not confined to any particular
form. It is not error, if it states the cause
of action to be founded on an assumption
by the defendant, and another who was
not summoned, and did not appear. Pur-
viance v. Dryden.
402

STATE-HOUSE.

See SHERIFF, 4.

1. Under the act of 13th March, 1815, the
county commissioners were authorised to
repair the rooms of the Supreme and Dis-
trict Courts, and to make repairs in other
parts of the state-house, necessary to make
these rooms safe and convenient, at the
expense of the county, notwithstanding by
so doing, the expense of repairing the
state-house, exceeded the amount of the
rents. Commonwealth v. The Commis-
sioners.
551

STREAM.

See NAVIGABLE STREAMS, 1, 2.

SUPREME COURT.

1. In trespass brought in the Supreme Court,
no declaration was filed, and arbitrators
awarded 250 dollars for the plaintiff; held,
on proof being made, that before the arbi-
trators the plaintiff's demand was for da-
mages amounting to 13,000 dollars, this
Court had jurisdiction. Bazire v. Barry.
461

SURETY.

1. A discharge under the insolvent law of
March 26th, 1814, of a defendant in pri-
son under a capias ad satisfaciendum,
does not discharge his surety for a stay of
execution. Sharpe v. Speckenagle. 463

SURVEY.

See WARRANT, 2.

1. Where a new survey is made calling for
the lines of an old survey, there is no occa-
sion to mark the trees a-new. Covert v.
Irwin.
283

2. Although the act of 8th April, 1785, di-
rects, "that every warrant shall be direct-
ed by the surveyor general to the deputy
surveyor of some district, in order that
the same warrant may be duly executed,"
yet a survey made under a warrant not
directed to the deputy surveyor of any
particular district, accepted by the sur-
veyor general, and not in couflict with any
other survey, is good evidence of title.
The act only deprives the party of his
priority of survey, on such warrant. Rey-
nolds v. Dougherty.

325
3. After a survey made and returned into
office, a second survey without an order
of the board of property, is merely void.
4. Such order may grant relief against the
fraud or mistake of an officer, provided

the warrant, and before the patent. Bech-
tel v. Rhoads.
534
2. There is no act of assembly which delares
that a warrant vests no title to the land it
describes, unless a survey be made there-
on, within seven years from its date. Deal
v. M. Cormick.
343

WARRANTY.

See COVENANT, 1, 2, 3.

WILL.

See POWERS, 1. EVIDENCE, 12, 13.
1. A. being indebted to his sons, B. and C.
in the sum of 3501. Irish sterling, made his
will, in which he cancelled debts amount-
ing to more than 10,000 dollars, due to
him from B. whom he had also previously
advanced, to the amount of 6,000 dollars,
and then gave him 500 dollars, and no
more. To C. he gave some small speci-
fic legacies, and one-fourth of the residue
of his estate, which he directed to be
equally divided between his wife, his son
C. and his two daughters, after certain le-
gacies to his wife, his daughters, and other
persons. He died, leaving a small real
estate, and personal property worth
255,000 dollars. Held, that the debt due
from the testator to his sons was not extin-
guished by any thing contained in the will.
Byrne v. Byrne.

54

2. A man has a right, by fair argument and
persuasion, to induce another to make a
will, and even to make it in his own fa-
vour. Miller v. Miller... ibid.

WITNESS.

20

1. An auctioneer sold goods to the defendant,
and committed them to the care of the
plaintiff, his servant, to be delivered to the
defendant on his performing certain con-
ditions. The defendant, by artifice, and
without performing the conditions, obtain-
ed the possession. Such auctioneer may
be a witness for the plaintiff in replevin
for the goods. Harris v. Smith..
2. Proof that a witness offered by the de-
fendant, had said about two years before
the trial," that every cent which should
be recovered in that action, would be de
ducted out of his wife's estate," does not
render him incompetent: it is only his
opinion at the time of taking the oath
which can have any influence upon him.
Fernsler v. Carlin.

130

3. Query, Whether a witness's thinking
himselfinterested at the time of swearing,
when he really is not, renders him incom-
petent.
ibid.

4. On a feigned issue between creditors, to
try the validity of a bond given by an in-
solvent, the obligor is a good witness to
prove that it was bona fide, and for a va-
fuable consideration. Wolf v. Carothers.

240

5. Query, Whether such obligor could, on
cross examination, be compelled to an-

swer questions tending to shew he was
guilty of fraud in relation to the bond. ibid.
6. The declarations of such obligor, made
in the absence of the obligee, are not
evidence to destroy the bond. ibid.
7. An administrator, who was the intestate's
clerk, is a good witness in a suit in which
he is plaintiff, to prove a book to be the
book of original entries of his intestate,
and that he himself made certain original
entries in that book, if it do not appear
that there is any person living, who can
make that proof, and the other clerks of
the intestate are dead. Ash v. Patton, 300
8. In order to remove the objection to a
plaintiff's evidence, on the ground that he
is liable for costs, it is necessary that not
only the costs which had accrued, but
those which might accrue, snowid se paid,
and that the plaintiff should stipulate that
in no event should these costs be refund-
ed.

ibid.
9. One who is security in the recognisanee
on appeal, may be discharged by the
Court, and other security taken in his
stead, in order to make him a witness.
Salmon v. Rance.

$11

10. One who has sold part of the land in
dispute, for a bond, without warranty, is
a good witness for the plaintiff; nor is it
any objection to him that he gave the ven-
dee a covenant of warranty in case the
plaintiff should recover: for he sweats
against his own interest.
11. If a writ be issued against two, and only
one be taken, and the suit proceed against
him alone, the other is not excluded from
being a witness on the ground that he is a
party to the suit. Purviance v. Dryden.

ibid.

402

ibid.

12. A witness is incompetent on the ground
of interest, who is offered by the plaintiff
to prove that the witness received the mo-
ney for which the action is brought, on
account of a firm, in which he and the de-
fendant were the partners, that he paid it
over to the defendant, who paid it away
principally for debts of his own, contract-
ed before the partnership.
13. In ejectment, a person who had a judg-
ment against the plaintiff's intestate, un-
paid, and a scire facias upon it depending,
which had been served on the tenant of
the land in dispute, but the personal pro-
perty was many times the amount of the
debt, and the administratrix had given se-
curity, and it did not appear how the pro-
perty was administered, was held to be a
competent witness for the plaintiff. Youst
v. Martin.
425
14. The plaintiff is a competent witness to
prove notice to the defendant to produce
a deed. Jordan v. Cooper.
564