82 MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

Some other day that terme or to the next terme all which is very uncer-
tein and therefore a Discontinuance of the Verdict which is a Manifest
Erro^r

[125] 8^th The Record Setts forth that John Rhodes by Sam^ll Wattkins his
Attorney upon the 9^th day of October 1695 Came before his Matys Justices
of the Provinciall Court and prayed that another Warrant of Resurvey might
Issue returnable to the then Next Prov^ll Court for the resurveying and laying
out of the Land Called Wattson according to the Ancient meets and Bounds
as in the Pattent thereof is Expressed and it was Granted And att the next
Prov^ll Court the Said Warrant together with the resurvey was returned and
the Court thereupon Gave Judgment for the Said John Rhodes Whereas
there was not any Suite or Action then Depending between the Said John
Rhodes and the Said Robert Grundy but the Court hath given Judgm^t upon
the returne of the resurvey onely for it Cannot possibly be Intended that
Judgment was given upon the former Verdict att the Barr, Because the issue
was tryed between William Harris Lessee of John Rhodes PI^t and Robert
Grundy Dei¹ according to the Deci So that the Court here in this Case hath
discontinued the Verdict and Given Judgment for Rhodes upon the War-
rant and the returne of the Surveyor onely which is an Apparent and a very
Gross Error

gthiy The court (had there been one) ought to have Continued the
Verdict and have given a Day over to the PI¹ and Def^t att the next Court, and
the PI¹ ought to have Sued out his Warr^t to resurvey the Lines which were
found by the Jury att the Barr, ad Informationem Curie whether the Tres-
pass was Comitted within th[e]se Lines or not, for upon this the whole Case
Depended, And the Court Could not give Judgm^t upon the Verdict without
being thus Informed, but instead of this John Rhodes who was not any party
to the Suite prays a Warrant to resurvey the Whole Tract of Land Called
Wattson and upon the returne thereof the Court gives Judgm^t for him w^cn
is a Manifest Error.

10thly Severall of the Jurors which were Impannelled and Sworne and
which were att the Executing the Warr^t of Resurvey Grantfed] to John
Rhodes and which did direct the Surveyo^r to lay out th[e] Land were not
Freeholders and therefore Erro^r

ntwy The Judgm^t is that John Rhodes recover ag^t the S^d Rob^t [126]
Grundy as well the Said Tract of Land Called Wattson and It is very uncer-
tein by this Judgment how many Acres of Land Wattson Conteineth for by
one Survey it Conteineth more, by another a less number of Acres nor doth
it Appear by this Judgm^t what Courses or Bounds Comprehends the Land
recovered by this Judgment but the Same is altogether uncerteine and there-
fore Erroneous.

12twy T^ Judgment here is That Rhodes recover the Land no Such
Judgm^t Could be given in this Case Supposing him to be the pl^e whereas in