clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
The Court of Appeals of Maryland, A History
Volume 368, Page 36   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

36 court of appeals of maryland

Maryland, Ss:

Anne by the Grace of God of England, Scotland France and
Ireland Queen Defender of the Faith, &c. To the justices
of our Provincial Court: Greeting. Because in the record and
process and rendering of judgment in an action of ejectment
brought some time since by Philip Lynes, Esq. against Notley
Rozier, Esq. for a certain tract of land in Charles County,
containing a thousand acres (called Beech Neck) before the
justices of our then Provincial Court manifest error it is said
has happened, to the great damage of the said Notley Rozier
(as by his complaint we have received 20) we willing that the
errors, if any there be, should in due manner be corrected, and
full and speedy justice done to the said parties in this behalf,
do therefore command you, our justices aforesaid, that the
record and process of the action and judgment aforesaid,
together with all things that relate to the same, before His
Excellency our Governor and our honorable Council at their
next sitting at Annapolis to hear appeals and writs of error,
in September next, under your hands and seals, distinctly and
openly, you send, that inspection being thereinto had, we may
cause to be done what according to right and the laws and cus-
toms of our province ought to be done in the premises.
Hereof you are not to fail.

Witness ourself at Annapolis aforesaid, the 29th day of June,
in the fourth year of our reign, Annoque Dom. 1705.

Jno. Freeman, Reg. in Cane.

Comparison with the original Latin form will
show that this is, except for the "received", a literal
translation,21 and, though somewhat more elabor-
ate, it was in substance the form used in the United
State courts until 1928.

20. "We have received" was a local mistranslation of accepimus,
which means here: we are or have been informed. See Blackst.
Comm. Ill, App. No. 3, sec. 6. Holdsworth, I, App. 655. Mis-
translation as it was, and almost certainly known to be such to
many of the lawyers and laymen, it held its place as part o£ an
established form for about a century and a half.

21. For comparison with translations later used in England see Ap-
pendix to Blackst. Comm. III.



 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland, A History
Volume 368, Page 36   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives