Provincial Court Proceedings, 1679/80. 349

Solley by Edmond Dennis her Attorney, as the said Collen Mackensy
by Ne^a Blackiston his Attorney, and the Juro^rs of that Jury likewise
Came. (To witt)

John Slye John Heard Robert Maston
John Noble Tho: Turpin Arthur Hart
Rich^d Shippey James Johnson Rob^t Thomas
Evan Carew Jn^o Martindale William Taylor

Who to say the Truth in the p^rmisses being Elected Tryed and
sworne Upon their oathes doe say (Wee finde noe Cause of accon)
And doe finde for the deft that hee hath overpaid Thirty nine pounds
of Tobacco & Costs of suite awarded the deft, and that the said Collen
Mackensy Recover against the said Lydia Solley the sume of six
hundred and Eighty pounds of Tobacco for his Costs and charges in
this behalfe Laid out and Expended
Coppyed out of the Records by mee
Tho: Grunwyn Clerke
Gerrard Slye (sealed) Clement Hill (sealed)
W^m Hatton (sealed) Joshua Doyne (sealed)
And the said Lydia Solley sayth That in the Record and Processe
afores^d as also in the Rendring of Judgment aforesaid It is mani-
festly Erred in this That
(1) — There was an accon of debt upon a bill und^r hand and seale
of the deft to the plt for Seaven hundred thirty seaven pounds of
Tobacco, she sues the deft for the same and never sayes the same
was demanded w^ch is Erro^r for noe action Could arise or accrue
before a Demand
(2) — The deft pleads payment and Puts himself upon the Country,
hee ought not to have put the same to issue, but have given the
plantiffe Liberty to reply & soe have brought it to issue, The baring
the plt from her Replicacon is Erro^r
(3) — The deft to prove his plea produces a Receipt from samll
Dobson for Six hogsh^ds of Tobacco Containing Neate Two thou-
sand five hundred and fifteene pounds of Tobacco for the pits use
not Specifyeing to bee in satisfaccon of that bill, and though by the

Liber W. C.

account made up in Court Itt appeared there were other bills and
accompts betweene the partys, Yet the Court Cancelled the bill, and
the Jury without Sufficient proofe it was payd found for the defend-
ant w^ch is Erro^r, ffor the bill being under hand and seale nothing
but a thing of the Like Vallue (that is to say a discharge und^r hand
& Scale) could discharge it. Therefore Erro^r
(4) — The deft haveing pleaded payment should have proved pay-
ment of that very individuall bill, or what else they proved was
nothing to the purpose, nor did it appertaine to the Court to make
themselves Audito" to state the accompts betweene them, but in

p. 319