FAYETTEVILLE,

OCTOBER TERM, 1796.

#### Wilcox v. Ray.

A copy of a record should be verbatim, and not be certified by the clerk that such things appeared to him from the record The loss of a record must be proved fay the oath of some person, and not by the certificate of the clerk.

Ejectment. The Plaintiff stated his title to be derived under Simpson (he patentee, against, whom the State recovered a judgment, upon which execution issued, and the land in question was sold lo him to satisfy it, on the 25th November, 1768. He produced the patent to Simpson, and offered what he called a copy of the record of the judgment and execution. It was a certificate of the clerk setting forth that it appeared to him from the docket, that a judgment had been entered for so mhch, and that, an ex-*473edition had issued, and that the rest of (he record what appeared upon the docket, was lust. Mr. Moore objected, that as to that part of the record which was lost, if it were a fact, it should be proven by some person on oath ; the clerk not being appointed by law to certify the loss of a record, his certificate upon the subject was of no consequence, and as to those part-, of the record which he had certified, they could not be received — for .he had only given a history of Use record as it appeared to him, whereas the very words should be copied, that the court might judge of the true import of it. The clerk may mistake the. meaning of the entries, and draw improper conclusions from them. And of that opinion a as the court, and refused to receive the certificate, and the Plaintiff was nonsuited.

Note. — Vide State v. Norman, 2 Dev. Rep. 222.