clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e
  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search search for:
clear space
white space
Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700
Volume 717, Page 234   View pdf image
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
(224) 234

       the Jury hath found by their Verdict to be the Attorny and Factor of John Abington and to be delivered
       for the proper accompt of John Abington And the Plt is noe way answereable though the goods never
       came to possession of the said John Abington But if they were imbezelled hee hath his Remedy ag.t
       his said Factor And as the Plt is informed the said John Abington hath taken large satisfaction
       for the said goods amongst other things By a Conveyance from the said Thomas Abington of
       land in England to a very Considerable vallue And as to John Abingtons assent it is
       Implyed by Thomas Abingtons being his Attorny

5     Whereas it is said that the Declaracon is in sufficient for that there is noe speciall demand sett
       forth nor day Month & year for the Deft to have taken issue upon The Plt sayth that there was
       noe need of any speciall request or demand in the Case for it is not sayd in the Declaracon That
       that Thomas Abington promised to pay Two hundred & Fifty pounds of tobacco when thereunto
       requested but that he promised to pay the same And therefore a sepe requisitus w.ch is expressed
       in the Declaracon is sufficient And this Apparent by a Practice And as to the day month & year
       when the bargaine and delivery of the goods were made The Plain.tf sayth they are expressed in
       the Declaracon to with the fifteenth day of November One thousand six hundred seaventy Eight
       As by the Declaracon may appeare Therefore this Allegacon being a manifest falshood is
       in abuse and dishono.r to the Court

6            It is hard to know what the Def.t meaneth in this sixth Article for he say the declaracon
       is Uncertaine & insufficient in that there is not any matter of fact sett forth for the Deft to
       plead to or take issue upon Whereas it is sett forth in the Declaracon That Thomas Abington the
       Attorny and Factor of John Abington the fifteenth of November one thousand six hundred
       Seaventy and Eight had and received of Thomas Trueman for the proper accompt of John
       Abington One Perewigg of the price of Two hundred & Fifty pounds of Tobacco for w.ch he
       promised to pay Two hundred & Fifty pounds of Tobacco in goods att five farthings p pound
       att their first Cost and to this the Def.t did take issue that Thomas Abington was not Attorny of
       of John Abington to buy & sell for him And yett now the Defend.t alleageth there wanted some
       what for him to take issue upon

7     Whereas it is alleadged that noe letter of Attorny from John to Thomas Abington was
       proved in Court the Plt says That the same was sufficiently proved by M.r Georg Lingan in
       open Court who soe farr satisfied the Consciences of the Jury in the point at issue That they
       found for the Plt w.ch Verdict is a good Verdict & cann noe ways be voyded unless the Defend.t
       cann attaint the Jury who found that Thomas was Attorny to buy & sell for John Abington

8     The Def.t Cavills because the Plt in the Declaracon hath not said the goods were worth Two
       hundred and Fifty pounds of tobacco But instead thereof hath said they were of the price of
       Two hundred & Fifty pounds of Tobacco w.ch is a very idle Cavilacon and altogether Imateriall
       the terms being Equivolent And the Defend.ts Conclusion That because the word [price] is used &
       not the word [worth] Therefore it may well be intended that the agreem.t betwixt the said Thomas
       Trueman & Thomas Abington was a fraudulent agreem.t to Imbezzell the goods of the said
       Defend.t Is soe vaine and void of sense in it selfe that it is utterly needless to multipli words
       about it      Whereupon the Plaintiffe sayth that by what he hath answered as aforesaid to
       the Defend.ts said p.rtended Reasons It is manifest that Judgem.t ought not to be stayed And
       further he sayth That by the Statute of Jeofalls of 32  11  8  Ca  30  And by that statute
       of Jeofalls of the 18.th Eliz Ca 14  And of the 21 of King James Ca 13  The aforesaid
                                                                                                                         Declaracon


  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700
Volume 717, Page 234   View pdf image
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 11, 2023
Maryland State Archives