Volume 717, Page 148 View pdf image |
139) 148 And hereupon came as well the ^said^ William Planner by Christopher Rousby his attorney as the said Amos Parsons by Robert Ridgely his Attorney and the said William Planner by his said Attorney sayth That in the Record and proces aforesaid as also in the Rendring Judgment aforesaid itt is manifestly Erronious First In this that itt is said in the said Record that William Planner as Attorney of Matthew Nelson was sumoned to answere unto Amos Parsons in a plea of trespas upon the Case Whereas noe plea of Trespas or any other accon well legally hold against any person as being the Attorney of another man but the accon should have been brought against Matthew Nelson himselfe and his Attorney ough to have been Less att Libertie whether hee would have appeared to Defend the same accon year or noe and ought not to bee arrested or restrayned of his Liberty for his Imployers debt or trespasse Secondly Itt is Erronious in this that the plant is admitted as itt appears by the sid Record to sweare and give Evidence in his owne Cause w.ch is not warranted by Law Especially as this Case stands Thirdly Itt is Erronious in this that there is noe Issue Joyned Between the parties plantiffe and Defendant Whereupon the Court could proceed to tryall and Judgment Fourthly Itt is Erronious in this that there is noe Jury Impannelled to try y.e matter of Fact wch does proply and Legally belong to th Cognizance of a Jury Fifthly There is noe mutuall consent of the parties appears by the said Transcript of the Record that they did putt themselves upon the Judgment of the Court w.thout a Jury Voluntarily and w.thout such consent Itt is manifest Error for the Court to take such power upon themselves Sixthly Lastly Itt is Erronious in this that for the supposed wrong Doeing of Matthew Nelson Judgment is given against William Planner to pay tot he plantiffe or his order three hundred and seaven pounds of Tobacco and three hundred and thirteen pounds of tobacco for Costs of suite & thereupon the said William Planner saith that in the Record and proces aforesaid as alsoe in the Rendring of Judgment aforesaid Itt is manifestly Erronious in the seaverall points before alleadged And therefore prayeth that for the Erro.rs before assigned the aforesaid proces proceedings & Judgment may bee wholly reversed Adnulled and held for nought And that hee the said William may in all things bee restored wherein hee hath suffered by reason of the p.rmisses and that the said Amos Parsons to the Erro.rs aforesaid may answere What Record proces and Erro.rs aforesaid being read and heard the said Amos Parsons by his said Attorney prayeth Lycence to imparle thereupon untill next provinciall Court and it is granted unto him the same day is given to the said William Planner Likewise Now here att this day (to witt) the thirteenth day of October in the fourth yeare of the dominion of Charles Lord Baltemore &c Annoq Domini One thousand six hundred seaventy nine Came the said parties by theire attorneys aforesaid and the said Amos Parsons by Robert Ridgely his Attorney demanded hearing of the Record and proces aforesaid and also of the Errors aforesaid above by the said William Planner assigned & they are read unto him wch being Read and heard the said Amos Parsons sayth that in the Record and proces aforesaid & in the Rendring of Judgment as aforesaid it is in nothing Erred and prayeth that the aforesaid Justices doe proceed as well to the Examination of the Record and proces as to the aforesaid Matters for Erro.rs assigned by the said William Planner And the said William Planner also And hereupon the Record and proces aforesaid to the Rendring the Judgm.t thereupon (&c) |
||||
Volume 717, Page 148 View pdf image |
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.