JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND. 171

require a hearing without delay; it being of a public concern, or an
extensive work in which a number of people are daily employed, as.

ROGERS, C., 28th March, 1787.—Decreed, that the defendant Petty pay to
the plaintiff the sum of £647 14s. 9d., with interest from 7th April, 1786,
until paid, and costs: and further, that the defendant Petty give bond, to be
approved by the Chancellor, to indemnify the plaintiff for any claims that
may be made against him on account of the ship Kitty; and that the injunc-
tion so far as respects the prosecution of the replevin remain in full force,
&c.

The defendant John Petty, having been served with a copy of the decree;
the plaintiff, by his petition, stated, that the defendant Petty had appealed,
but had not given bond; that he had not paid the sum of money decreed:
that he not given the bond of indemnification decreed; and that he had dis-
posed of the salt, on which the plaintiff had a lien, in violation of the in-
junction. Prayer for a ca. sa. against Petty for the sum decreed; and for
attachments for not giving the bond of indemnification, and for a breach of
the injunction.

ROGERS, C., 2d May, 1787.—Ordered, that ca. sa. and attachment to compel
indemnification according to decree issue according to the prayer of the
plaintiff's petition.

Afterwards the plaintiff called on the sheriff to bring in the defendant
under the ca. sa.. and the defendant moved to set it aside.

ROGERS, C., 24th May. 1787.—The ca. sa., in this case, issued with pro-
priety, and the plaintiff ought to be at liberty to call it: and the defendant
John Petty being brought into Court, he is thereupon, on the prayer of the
plaintiff, committed in execution of the decree aforesaid to the sheriff of
Ann Arundel County.

Who being present took charge of him accordingly, and committed him to
close custody in a chamber of the house of George Mann, (the tavern,) the
same being used as a gaol.

McMECHEN v. STORY.—This bill was filed on the 23d of December. 1806, by
David McMechen against Thomas Yates, Alexander Story, and The Mayor
and City Council of Baltimore, to obtain an injunction to stay proceedings
at law in a suit which had been instituted in the name of The Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore, for the use of Alexander Story. It is stated in
the bill, that the plaintiff in January. 1799, became bound by a joint and
several bond to the City of Baltimore as surety of the defendant Yates as an
auctioneer; that afterwards separate suits were brought on the bond against
Yates, and the plaintiff, in the name of the city, for the use of Story; that
Yates repeatedly assured the plaintiff, that the cause of action should be
settled and adjusted, and that he, Yates, would cause those suits to be de-
fended, and had employed a lawyer for that purpose; that the attorney, in-
stead of making any defence, by the fraudulent contrivance and misrepre-
sentation of Yates. withdrew the plea of general performance of all the
stipulations in the condition of the bond; and in May, 1803, confessed judg-
ment for the sum of $4,154.30, with interest from the first of January, 1800,
and a stay of execution until the first of August, 1803: which judgment
was afterwards affirmed by the Court of Appeals; that the claim of Story