#### Doe on demise of Yo-na-gus-kee v. Coleman.

[ From Buncombe. J

When a document is offered in evidence, purporting to have'subscribed thereto the name ofua public agent, his signature must be proved

This case was in all respects similar to the last, except that in this case, Plain!iff, at the time of ihe ratification of the treaty of 1819, was living on the land contained within the lines of his survey.

An objection was taken, on the trial below, to the cer-tifícate?, of R. J. Meigs and Col. Houston, because there was no in-oof that they wore executed by the persons whose seis ¡key purported to be; but the objection was overruled.

Per Curiam.

The certificate of enrolment, according to th<- treaty, ought to have been proved, like any other documentary evidence. We do not know that R. J. Meigs *175lias really signed the paper; it is not made evidence by Jaw, any more than tbc certificate of any other indi vidual.

There must be a new trial.