330       Provincial Court Proceedings, 1676.

            Liber N N make complaint to a justice & informe him of any felony, & after
                  not giulty pleaded & verdict for the plaintiff t'was moved in arrest
                  of judgment, where t'was adjudged that the plaintiff should take
                  nothing by his writt Ram & Lamleys case Huttons Rep. 1 13.
                  Secondly When the party is bound by recognizance to give evi-
                  dence & he exhibits his bill & gives evidence that is good cause of
                  justification, for otherwise every One who exhibites a bill of indict-
                  ment & gives evidence against a Prisoner shall be drawne in ques-
                  tion for a Conspiracy &c Chambers & Taylors Case, Croke Rep. 1st
                  part fot 900. where t'was adjudged for the defendant. Which being
                  read & heard it is the judgment of the Court here the fourth day
                  of December Anno 1676 that the reasons aforesaid are in sufficient
                  to arrest the judgment aforesaid whereupon it is granted by the
                  Court here that the said John Wedge recover against the said James
                  Ringold the summe of eleaven thousand pounds of tobacco damages
                  by Occasion of the trespas aforesaid with costs of Suite.
                    Afterwards to wit the sixth day of the same December Came the
                  said James Ringold by his Attorny aforesaid & prayed his Lopps
                  writ of Error & Supersedeas to be granted hereupon, Offering rea-
                  sons why he ought to have the Same allowed vizt, ffor that there
                  Ought to have been made appeare Some malice in the party defendant
                  against the plaintiff, which was not done, and damage without malice
                  is not punishable in this case.
                    Also for that there Ought to have been Speciall proofe to the
                  Court & jury of the damage done by the defendant tu the plaintiff
                  whereby the verdict found by the jury for damages against the de-
                  fendant might have been legally grounded & justified but no damage
                  was proved & consequently no damages ought to have been recovered.
                    Also the said verdict was vitious in that the jury grounded the
                  same upon the Single testimony of John Wells who at the same time
                  had bought the profitt of an action then depending in the Provinciall
                  Court between Zachary Mahugh & James Ringgold the said Mahugh
                  being a party equally concerned & engaged with the said Wedge in
                  robbing of the said Ringold, and the said action being so bought by
                  the said Wells being of the same nature & quality with this action
                  between Wedge & Ringold Therefore the said defendant James
                  Ringold craves that the Court will grant him a writ of Supersedeas
                  to stopp the execution in the said cause between Wedge and himself e
                  and that the said defendant Ringold may have time to assigne his
                  further Errors and that the same may be argued before the Upper
                  house of the next Generall Assembly.
                      Which being read & heard Ordered then by the Court that the
                      defendant have writ of Error & Supersedeas accordingly he
                      giveing security to prosecute the same according to act of as-
                      sembly in such case made & provided.
                    Afterwards to wit the seventh day of the same December Came