MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS 469

To the Honourable the high Court of Appeals the Answer of Philemon
Lecompt and Mary his Wife the Daughter and heir to William Seward Deced
the Son and heir of George Seward to the Petition and Appeale of Levin
Hicks and Thomas Hicks

These Respondents not Confessing or Acknowledgeing the Matters Al-
ledged in the Said Petition of Appeale to be true as in the Said Petition Set
forth further then the Sundry proceedings to w^ch the Said Petition referrs do
evince the Same to Which Said Severall Proceedings here ready in Court to
be produced these Respondents referr and Referring to themselves all Ad-
vantages of Exception to the undue qualification of the Appellants for their
prosecuting their Said Appeale Against these Respondents and all other Ad-
vantages Saved and reserved Say that the truth of the allegations of the Bill
in Chancery mentioned in the Applicants Petition and by these Respondents
prayed to be referred to hath been as these Defendants Conceive fully proved
and yet appeae [sic] to be unquestionably true by Matter of Record in this
Honble Court already lodged or ready to be produced and these Respondents
further Shew and hope to prove by the Record and proceedings of both
houses of Assembly to Which ready to be produced these Respondents pray
Leave to referr that the whole truth of the Severall Tracts in these Respond-
ents favour and the Justice and Equity of their Cause have been fully proved
to the Satisfaction of both Houses of Assembly in this Province where the
Said Thomas Smithson of Talbot County was himself a Member and made
all the Opposition in his power to Make who yet past An Act in favour of
their Right which Act as these Def^u hope to prove was Dissented to by the
then Governour for no other reason but that the Case might be Remedyed
In Chancery Without the making a Law on purpose for it That these Re-
spondents and their Ancestors have been held out of their Rights this many
years by pretext of Irregularity in their Applications or other Subtile Sur-
mises of the Petitioners and their ancestors tho all the Judicatures it ever yet
Came before have Adjudged their Right Unquestionable And therefore as
the Case hath been referred from his Lordship to his proper Court of Judi-
cature for remedy which Court was the Chancery and Which Chancery hath
applyed the remedy these Respondents hope there Will not (after So great
delay almost to the utter ruine of these Respondents) be any further Occa-
sion given to Say that these Respondents for So many years together have
had a Right but not a Remedy under his Lordships Government These Re-
spondents have heard and hope to prove that the Said [667] Davis in the
Petition mentioned if he had any Right (which these Defendants are well
Assured the Said Hicks the Elder denyed he had) yet that he intirely declined
Intermedling therewith relying wholly on the Said Hicks's fate in the Case
who was Sometime a Provintial Judge and of Capacity and Interest far Su-
perior to That of Said Davis and on Whose Managment the Said Davis
wholly relyed And these Respondents further Say that they are advised if the