If the record offered purported to be a judgment of recent date, I should hesitate befoi’e I could ... , _ , ., . , . receive it as such. But it is a record of 1783, made m a ■ new and frontier County Court at the close of the revolutionary war, at a time and in a place where we may presume the records were made and kept in a slovenly manner. Under these circumstances I think the record. offered as a judgment may be deemed sufficient. The .sheriff’s return- under the attachment, is, that he had levied on his land; there was a judgment by default; and on the writ of inquiry the jury assessed damages to 41?. 2s. 6d. and costs. On this verdict we'must take it, that the Court gave judgment, from that judgment a fiare fa-das issued, a sale- took place under it, and the sheriff* made a deed of conveyance for the lands in question to James Greenlee the highest bidder: the affidavit of Green-lee, and the attachment, are not shown, but we may reasonably presume they existed, from the proceedings which have taken place in Court afterwards,' and which are now shown. For these reasons, I think the rule for a new trial should be made absolute.
The other judges concurred.