The Court gave a charge in Favour of Defendant; and the Jury accordingly gave the Plaintiff's a Verdict for so much only as they judged a compensation for Salvage, charges, and Loss of Time, on account of the capture.

The Court determined, that administration be granted to the children.

At the Assises held for Charles County, in April, 1767, the following bill of exceptions was taken, viz. The plaintiff, in order to support and prove his location on the plat, of the land in the declaration, offered as a witness one William Simpson, who deposed

Hands, J. was of opinion, that it was not proper evidence to be given in this case to the jury. The defendant excepted. Verdict for the Plaintiff: and upon the return of the Postea, the provincia! court adjudged the exception good, set aside the verdict, and

The Charge given to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice was as follows. GENTLEMEN of the Grand Jury: At the Opening of the Court you are sensible that the Path of your Duty should be pointed out to you; and, in Order that you may have an Apprehension of what is

But the Court said, that under these Sort of Orders from the Proprietor’s Officers, a great Part of the Province had been settled, and that for the general conveniency they had been heretofore allowed to be given in Evidence, and particularly in M'Dowall’s Case

The Court ( 1 ) upon this Point ruled unanimously, that the Justice should not be sworn to Anything that came before him judicially. ( 2 ) *3 Then the Justice’s Mittimus was produced as Evidence. The Mittimus, as a Mittimus, was allowed by the Council for the

TO relieve the Oppressed, to guard the Innocent, to preserve the Order of Society, and the Dignity of Government is a noble Principle of the Mind. This is the Duty of every Individual of the Community, but is more particularly incumbent, Gentlemen, upon you, as

The Court unanimously held, No; ( 3 ) and ordered *106 the Witness to be sworn, directing the Jury to give what Weight they pleased to her Evidence. This Evidence alone cleared Pourksdorff by swearing the stole the Goods herself. (3) It seems to have been

Just. Oliver. Whether this is a reasonable Cut tom must first be considered. I think it is. I think, too, it appears to be a Custom. Just. Cushing. This Case is very different from what it is at Home; ’tis there the universal Usage, which makes it the Supposition

GENTLEMEN of the Grand Jury: We, as the Superiour Court of the Province, are to carry the Laws into Execution, but in this we have Need of your Assistance. Your Business, Gentlemen, more immediately respects the Crown Law. It is my Duty to inform you what Steps

AUTHORITIES in Favour of the Plaintiff were, Molloy (old Edit.) 205, § 10, 212, § 14, 213, § 14; Molloy (new Edit. 1744) 358, *188 237-8, 244-5 ; 2 Raymond, 931; Ld. Holt’s Opinion relied on; Sea Laws, 128. 1765. In Favour of the Defendant were, 2 Chancery

Ch. Justice. All Cases brought to this Court are certainly brought for Tryal, let them come up how they will. Nolumus mutare Leges Anglio.

A. drew a negotiable Order upon B. accepted the Order, and after Acceptance the Order was indorsed over. The Question was, if the Indorsee could support an Action against B. (upon his Acceptance aforesaid upon the Preserment of the Order by the Payee) before personal

The Court, after a short Argument, were unaniously of Opinion that the Exception was the first of the kind ever made; that, if allowed, would destroy all Wills from being Evidence, as it would bring the real Point in (as they expressed it) upon a Side Motion,

A Majority of the Court was of Opinion that this Action for Money had and received would not lie, and so directed the Jury, who found accordingly. * ( 1 ) A Deed casually destroyed by Fire may be proved by Witnesses. N. B. A ípecial Aétion on the Cafe

The Chief Justice delivered the Judgment of the Court in Favour of the Fee Simple. ( 9 ) (9) This judgment is recorded as of September term at Worcester, but the entry bears evidence of having been inserted at a later date. The decision was undoubtedly given

The Court ruled, that he should be examined on the Voire dire, and if he said he was disinterested, he should be sworn in chief; which was done, and he was admitted a Witness.

To this it is answered, that a master is never liable for his servants, unless they are acting by his command or privity. Fin. Abr. Trespass, 460. pi. 1. The command of the master is a fact not found, and therefore the Court cannot presume it. But supposing this

UPON a special Verdict, which was: “The “Jury find that the Overseers of the Poor in “the Absence of the Defendant and without his “Request advanced for the necessary Support of the “Defendant’s Wife and Children a certain Sum, and “if by Law the Plaintiff as Treasurer