Provincial Court Proceedings, 1664. 237






   Nic° Spencer plt                               Liber B B
                  let fall n ut supra—
     Ma: Bateman deft

      Jno Nuthall plt the plt: sues as in his petcon upon a specialty in
      Tho: Dent defendt folio 275—Judgmt by the deft confest for 3892lb

      tob.: the remaine of the said Bill there being a receipt on the back

      side for part thereof to be paid att One intire payment & accordingly

      entred for Iudgmt—

      Jno Nuthall plt:
                         respited for an hour till the Defend
     Tho:  Dent defendt
            . puts in his answer
        the Attor of Hollingworth

   Jno Reed plt::   the plt sues as in his petcon fo: 276 the deft
      Geo: Reed defendt put him to proue his declaracon that he had
      made any trespass upon the said land—the plt: not prouing any tres
      pass neither by wittnesses or otherwise the cleft Craues Nonsuite,
      which by the Board is Ordered—likewise the Board hath Ordered the
      deft these charges following
            A nonsuite    3501
            3 dayes attendance      90 500lb tob:
            Attornyship     60
      Summons in ditto Causo for Peter Joy in Court—

      John Halfhead plt The plt sues as in his petcon fo: 283 produc
      Jone Nicculgutt deft ing the defts Indenture—The defendt by her
      Attorney puts in her answer which is as foll:
      To the honble the Gouernor and Councell     283
        The defence of James Thompson Gentn in the behalf e of Jone 330
      Moglanna (uide)
        Impr In answere to that Clause in the petcon of the plaintiffs wch
        saith that neither the plaintiffe nor Mr Cuthbert ffenwick were prsent
        att that time when Jone Maglanna had her freedome Granted by
        Order of Our Court, I the said James Thompson in behalfe of the
        said Jone Maglanna doe auerre the Contrary And Cann and will [p. 301]
        prone that Mr Fenwick was then prsent and did demand of mee (who
        then was alsoe her Attorney) why I needed to sue in this Case and
        I made him answere why doe yow then retaine her and hinder her
        ffreedome And hee said I hinder her not, and therefore that Clause
        in the Plaintifs declaracon is erroniously alleadged—
        Secondly that pretended Indenture is noe way effectuall to binde 21y
      the said Jone Maglanna it being made allmost a twelue month after
      her Arriuall as by two Oathes (now resting upon Record in Caluert
      County and whereof the Plaintiffe hath a Coppy) may euidently
      appeare, therefore the defendt is unjustly sued for anothers yeares
      Seruice.