induced to examine the deeds very closely, with a view to the discovery of some defect by which to overturn the title, being almost convinced then it was founded in fraud.  I discovered that in the deed from Thomas to Miller, although Miller’s name stood in a sort of marginal note on the record book, it was nowhere in the deed itself.  I told the fact to Talbott, the recorder, and proposed to him that he should go to Gen. Adams’s and get the original deed, and compare it with the record, and thereby ascertain whether the defect was in the original or there was merely an error in the recording.  As Talbott afterwards told me, he went to the General’s, but not finding him at home, got the deed from his son, which, when compared with the record, proved what we had discovered was merely an error of the recorder.  After Mr. Talbott corrected the record, be brought the original to our office, as I then thought and think yet, to show us that it was right.  When he came into the room he handed the deed to me, remarking that the fault was all his own.  On opening it, another paper fell out of it, which on examination proved to be an assignment of a judgment in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County from Joseph Anderson, the late husband of the widow above named, to James Adams, the judgment being in favor of said Anderson against one Joseph Miller.  Knowing that this judgment had some connection with the land affair, I immediately took a copy of it, which is word for word, letter for letter and cross for cross as follows: 

Joseph Anderson, vs.  Joseph Miller.

Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court against Joseph Miller obtained on a note originally 25 dolls and interest thereon accrued.  I assign all my right, title and interest to James Adams which is in consideration of a debt I owe said Adams.

his Joseph x Anderson. mark.

As the copy shows, it bore date May 10, 1827; although the judgment assigned by it was not obtained until the October afterwards, as may be seen by any one on the records of the Circuit Court.  Two other strange circumstances attended it which cannot be represented by a copy.  One of them was, that the date “1827” had first been made “1837” and, without the figure “3,” being fully obliterated, the figure “2” had afterwards been made on top of it; the other was that, although the date was ten years old, the writing on it, from the freshness of its appearance, was thought by many, and I believe by all who saw it, not to be more than a week old.  The paper on which it was written had a very old appearance; and there were some old figures on the back of it which made the freshness of the writing on the face of it much more striking than I suppose it otherwise might have been.  The reader’s curiosity is no doubt excited to know what connection this assignment had with the land in question.  The story is this:  Dixon sold and deeded the land to Thomas; Thomas sold it to Anderson; but before he gave a deed, Anderson sold it to Miller,