HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr1004 and id is 1 raw text is: TERM. MICH. 6 GEO. II. 1732
power of convicting a person for being loose, idle and disorderly; and he apprehended,
that this was a conviction in the present case. The consequence of which was, that
this Court would not interpose and bail the defendant. But the Court said, that the
words of the present commitment were, For want of sureties keep the defendant in
custody; so that she was no longer to be kept, than till she was able to find sureties;
for which reason they were of opinion, that she ought to be bailed. Upon this Mr.
Reeves said, that there would be occasion then to lay a farther state of this matter
before the Court. The defendant he observed was a negroe, and by the laws of the
plantations abroad the master has a property in her ; which property, he submitted it,
was not altered by her coming with her master into England. Now if the Court
should bail the defendant, the Court must take away from the master that custody of
his property, which he is intitled to, and must deliver her into the custody of her bail.
The Court said they would not enter into an inquiry of that matter upon this motion
for being the defendant ; and therefore inquired who was her bail. It was suggested
upon this, that she was a married woman, and that her husband's name was Carter;
but that was denied by the other side. However, the Court said, that if there was
any doubt of that matter, they would certainly not take her own recognizance. Upon
which Carter, her supposed husband, entered into a recognizance for her, and she had
two other bail likewise. Accordingly she was bound over for her appearance at the
next Westminster Sessions, by the name of Anne Carter, alias Anne Black, and then
the Court discharged her.
[216] BANKS AND DOYLEY. How far the Court will set aside a plea of
privilege, by reason that there is no affidavit annexed to it.
A few days ago Mr. Parker had obtained a rule for setting aside a plea of privilege,
there being a writ of privilege ; but no affidavit annexed to it. Mr. Proctor came
now and moved to discharge it, by reason that, as he apprehended, the writ of
privilege itself was sufficient. But the Court said, that it is not ascertained by the
writ of privilege, that the defendant was an attorney of the Common Pleas at the
time of the action commenced against him in this Court; for which reason they
thought, that an affidavit ought to have been annexed to the plea, accordingly
refused to discharge the rule.
WRENCH AND HIXON AND OTHERS. What kind of plea need not be under
counsel's hand.
Upon the Master's report, the case came out to be in the manner following. In
an action brought against two executors, they pleaded distinct pleas ; one, ne unques
executor ; the other, plene administravit. The plene administravit was signed under
counsel's hand; but not the ne unques executor. Both these pleas were brought
upon one piece of paper ; and appeared upon the face of them as one plea; but no
counsel's hand was at the bottom of them. However the plaintiff's attorney accepted
them; but afterwards signed his judgment against both the executors, taking it for
granted, that these were no pleas for want of counsel's hand to them. As soon as he
had signed this judgment, he entered it up against both; and took out execution
accordingly. Mr. Fazakerly how argued for the plaintiff and submitted it, that the
plea of ne unques executor ought to have been signed by counsel, as well as the plea
of plene administravit. And though the plaintiff's attorney made no objection to it
at the time he received it; yet he apprehended it was as no plea; and consequently the
plaintiff was well intitled to sign his judgment against him. And if he could sign it
against him, there was no question but he might sign it against the other executor ;
for to that plea there undeniably ought to have been a counsel's hand appearing upon
the paper which was brought by the plaintiff's attorney. However, he said, if there
were any doubts upon the first point, whether that plea ought to have been signed by
counsel ; yet as both these pleas were upon one piece of paper, and appeared upon the
face of them as one, a defect in the last shall prejudice the first, as much as if there
was a defect in both. He submitted it likewise, that the whole ought to have been
left with the clerk of the papers, as both pleas were upon one piece of paper, and as
2. EARN. K. B. 216.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1004&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)