¶1 The only question raised by the appeal and discussed on the argument of case here was whether the Judge erred in holding that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, when he undertook to contradict the sheriff’s return that no fees were “paid or tendered to lay off the defendant’s homestead.” In Hunter v. Kirk, 4 Hawks, 277, Judge Hall said that as the sheriff is “a sworn officer, his return cannot be contradicted by” a single affidavit. That case was cited with approval as to this point in Mason v. Miles, 63 N. C., 564. If the same amount of artificial weight is not still to be given to such returns, they are at least competent as official acts, and when admitted, constitute prima facie evidence of the truth of what the sheriff stated in compliance with the requirements of law. Simpson v. Hiatt, 13 Ired., 470; Loftin v. Huggins, 2 Dev., 10. “A levy endorsed on the execution” said RufeiN, C. J., in State v. Vick, 3 Ired., 491, “has been received as prima facie evidence for the sheriff upon the ground that such an entry was a cotemporaneons act, being a part of his return.” If the return was prima facie or presumptively true, nothing further appearing, or until rebutted by contradictory evidence, it was the duty of the court to act on the assumption that it was a correct report of the sheriff’s official acts in reference to the process. Upon the authorities cited 'we think there was no error in the ruling complained of and the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
¶2 Affirmed.