Assembly Proceedings, May — June 1674. 367

Allsoe it is Erronious in this in th^t after the Issue was Joyned
it is not menconed When the Venire facias went out or when
Retornable nor to what Sherrife directed nor is it entered upon
record more then Wherefore order is given &c.
Allsoe It is Erronious in this in th^t in the Record it is said
The Defend^t in Open C^rt Confessed the Bond to be his deed
Whereupon Judgm^t Passed for the Plaintife Whereas there is
noe mencon of the appearance of both Parties & the time
when to heare Judgm^t nor is there any mencon made Whether
the s^d Jurors were Retorned or appeared or not w^ch since by
the Record is signified th^t a Venire or Ord^r was given out for
a Jury there ought to have been some mencon made of the
Retorne thereof & since non e factum by the Rules of the C^rt
is a Proper Plea to a Bond though the s^t Bailey did not denye
but Owne the s^d Bond to be his hand yet the s^d Cause should
have come to tryall & by the Rule of the Court the s^d Bailey
ought & was bound to plead th^t Plea & might give the speciall
matter in Evidence w^ch he was not Allowed to doe but as
soone as he had Owned the s^d bond to be his hand Judgm^t
was given for the s^d Stapleford without ever hearing w^t the s^d
Bailey had to Offer as Speciall matter in Evidence, w^ch was
this, The s^d Bond was for 2000^ls Sterl from the s^d Bailey to
Stapleford w^th a Condicon for to Stand to Arbitracon & Award
& in Case of not meeting of the s^d Bailey & Attending the
Arbitral^rs when they should Appoint to meete the s^d Bailey to
forfeit a 100^ls Wherefore since noe Award was made by the s^d
Arbitral^rs the s^d Bailey could not forfeit the s^d 2000^ls & since It

U. H.
Journal
original

was never made appeare that Bailey had anie notice of the
meeting of the s^d Arbitrate Judgm^t could not goe against the
s^d Bailey for 100^ls Sterl.
Allsoe It is Erronious in this in th^t the Record doth not As-
certaine what Bond when dated or for what Summe the s^d Bond
was th^t the s^d Bailey Confessed to be his deed soe th^t if the s^d
Stapleford should Comence his Action anew ag^t the s^d Bailey
upon the very bond w^ch he then & there Confessed the s^d Bailey
by Reason of the uncertainties afores^d Cannot Plead the s^d
Judgm^t in barre thereof
Allsoe It is Erronious in this In th^t the s^d Judgm^t is for noe
Certaine Sume but wholly uncertaine & dubious & alltogether
void in lawe by reason of the Uncertainty thereof as in the
Record it is said Whereupon Judgm^t past for the Plaintife
whereas it ought to have been menconed in this manner Where-
fore it is Considered by the Co^rt here th^t the s^d Reymond Re-
cover ag^t the s^d John as well the s^d Sume of
his debt afores^d as allsoe the Sume of
for his Costs &c.
Allsoe the s^d Writ of Scire facias was manifestly erronious

p. 22