Any comments, errors or omissions
gratefully received The
Editor
HTML Transcription
© F.Coakley ,
2001
[from Advocate's Notebook, 1847]
This was a suit brought by the pltff. as executor of Patrick Lace, who departed this life the 13th April, 1795, entitled to certain lands which were then under lease, and the pltff. claimed to be entitled to the whole of the year's rent which became due up to the 12th November following, in the nature of an executor's crop. 10th May, 1796. The jury returned their verdict "That the pltff. was only entitled to the proportion of rent of the premises calculated up to the clay of the death of the testator.
This suit was brought against the proprietors of a corn-mill in the parish of Marown, and Henry Kissack, the miller in occupation of the mill. The declaration charged "that the pltf was the proprietor and occupier of certain lands called the Curragh, situate above the said mill. That a drain or watercourse ran through the pltff's. premises into a river which supplied the said mill with water; and the pltff. complained that the defts. had, for some time past, supported, maintained, and kept up a bulwark, or building in the nature of a dam-head, across the said drain or watercourse, whereby the water thereof, which ought to have been carried off, had been obstructed, so as to overflow and injure the pltff's. premises; wherefore he charged that he was damaged in the sum of £100."
After a Jury of View had been on the premises, the cause was heard on the 6th February, 1798, when the jury gave the following verdict :-
"The defts. ought to keep the dam-head, in the declaration mentioned, so reduced as not to injure the lands of the pltff. above the same, by damming the water thereon, and that pltff. recover one shilling damages."
The declaration in this case stated, that the pltff's. were proprietors and occupiers of the estate of Mary Voar, in the parish of Santon, and that the deft. was the proprietor and occupier of a certain field, called Crot-e-Creggan, part of the quarterland of Ballavilley. That the proprietors and occupiers of Mary Voar had a right of way and quarterland road through Ballavilley to the creek, called Port Greenock, which way or road was bounded by, and adjoined to a rivulet on the one hand, and adjoined to, and was bounded by the said premises of Crot-e-Creggan on the other. That by the encroachments of the river and falling down of the brow of Crot-e-Creggan, the road had became narrow and useless, and could not be made passable except by extending it into the deft's. premises, which he refused to consent to or permit, to the great damage of the pltffs. ; and the pltffs. prayed they might he adjudged entitled to a lawful quarterland road upon the said premises of Crot-e-Creggan, as far as the nature of the ground required, and that the bounds thereof might be fixed and ascertained, and that pltffs. might recover their damages according to law.
In Hillary Term following, a Jury of View was sworn to appear on the premises on the 3rd May following, and on the 8th May, the cause was heard on the merits, when the pltffs. obtained a verdict as follows : " The pltff's. are entitled to a sufficient quarterland road through, or upon, the deft's. lands to Port Greenock, as near to the stream called Struan-e-Kneale as conveniently may be."
LIB. PLI., 9th May, 1797.
LACE and CRELLIN, Ds.
The pltff. Margt., claiming to be heiress-at-law of Philip Cannell, deceased, filed her declaration stating, that the said Philip Cannell, was entitled to the estate of Ballakermcen, part of the quarterland of Ballakermeen, of 6s. 5d. rent. Also apart of the quarterland of Ballabrooie, of 6s. 6d. rent. Also a parcel of intack land of 3d. rent. That the said estates were of considerable, and of increasing value, and were in the lifetime of said Cannell, viz., on 30th March, 1793, of the yearly value of £90. That nevertheless the said Philip Cannell, with intent to benefit the said Mathias Simpson, and to prejudice his heiress-at-law, granted a lease to him, on the 30th March, 1793, for twenty-one years, for the small and inadequate rent of £40 Manx. That Philip Cannell died 3rd Feb., 1795, whereupon the lease became voidable by the pltff: Margaret, as his heiress-at law ; nevertheless the cleft. continued to hold the premises, to the damage of the pltffs. in £1000, wherefore they prayed that the lease might be set aside, not having been made of the highest and most improved rent which could well have been got for the salve, and that they might recover the possession of the lands and premises, with the damages they had sustained by reason of the deft. leaving possessed the said lands from the death of the said Philip Cannell ; or otherwise, that a fair valuation be made of ,the said lands and premises, and that such an increased rent be paid by the said deft. to the pltffs. as might be just and reasonable.
The case came on to be heard on the 6th Feb., 1798, when the Court made the following order :-
" The parties having joined issue in this cause, and the same being ready for trial, this Court has thought proper to order and direct the following issue to be tried therein previous to the general issue, that is to say, whether Philip Cannell in the declaration mentioned had a right to grant any lease for the term of twenty-one years of his lands of inheritance, called Ballakermeen and Ballabrooie in this cause mentioned, or for any other, and what, term, whereby his heir-at-law would be bound, previous to an Act of Tynwald passed in the year 1777. This cause is therefore ordered to stand over for trial of the said previous issue as well as of the general issue, upon the second day of Easter Term next, whereof all parties to have notice."
" JOHN LACE,
"JOHN F. CRELLIN."
The cause was finally heard on the 9th May, 1798, when the jurors gave the following verdict
" That Philip Cannell, of Ballakermeen, in the pleadings named, had, previous to the Act of Tynwald passed in the year 1777, a right, by the law of the land, to grant a lease of his estate of inheritance aforesaid, in the pleadings also mentioned, for the term of twenty-one years, whereby to bind his heir-at-law, and the said jury further say, that the pltffs. recover nothing, and therefore dismiss this suit, each party bearing his own costs."
A traverse was entered on the 21st day of May, 1798, and the verdict affirmed by the House of Keys, the 21st November, 1798.
LIB. CAN., 6th Jan., 1799.
SHAW, G.
STOWELL for Petitioner.
This was a petition stating, that the petitioner was imprisoned under an order of the Ecclesiastical Court for the sum of £20, at the suit of Wm. Halsall, executor of Thomas Mylroie. That the petitioner was wholly unable to discharge the debt, or any part of it, having lately had the misfortune to fail in trade, and having given up all his property and effects, upon oath, to satisfy his creditors, as far as the same would extend ; and the petitioner prayed that he might either be released from gaol, or that the said Wm. Halsall might be ordered to maintain him.
6th June, 1799.
The Court, upon a hearing, after due notice to parties, gave judgment upon the petition, stating, "That the petitioner had delivered up all his property and effects, upon oath, to satisfy his creditors, and had not the means of supporting himself in gaol; and, therefore, the said Wm. Halsall is ordered to subsist the petitioner in gaol at the rate of three shillings and sixpence per week, and in default thereof the petitioner to be discharged from his imprisonment."
"ALEX. SHAW."
The complnt. in this matter filed her bill in the Court of Chancery, charging, amongst other things, that the interest upon. a mortgage, originally granted by her ancestor, had been suffered to get into arrear. That the mortgagee, without the privity and consent of the mortgagor, had assigned the mortgage to the deft., with all the arrears of interest added, so as to make a much larger amount of principal than was named in the original mortgage, and upon which gross amount the deft. now claimed interest. And it was urged, for the complnt., that this was charging interest upon interest, which was inequitable and unjust.
The Court, upon a hearing, decreed against the complnt., and ordered that the mortgagee should pay interest upon the whole amount of the assignment.
LACE and CRELLIN, Ds.
M. H. QUAYLE, C. R.
This was an action at Common Law, whereby the pltff. sought to establish a claim to certain intack lands in the parish of Ballaugh, under the following circumstances
Thomas Corlett, deceased, had issue by his first wife one son, the father of the pltff. After the death Of his first wife he married Anne Caley, by whom he had six children; amongst these were the deft. Margaret, and William Corlett who went beyond the seas.
On the 6th April, 1755, the said Thomas Corlett declared his will nuncupative, which, after his decease, was duly proved by the witnesses, On the 18th June, 1755, and probate was granted to his widow, who was appointed executrix. By this will he bequeathed "his purchased lands equally between all his children by his last wife," reserving a life interest to her.
In 1776, Anne Corlett made her will, in which she speaks of her son William as then beyond the seas. In 1785, Anne Corlett died, and Patrick Corlett, her executor, proved her will.
Margaret, the deft., married Robert Frowd. Patrick Corlett died, having made his will, and appointed his sister, the deft., his executrix.
William Corlett not having been heard of since the year 1766, the deft., in 1793, set up a nuncupative will, alleged to have been made by William upon his leaving the Island in 1764, wherein "he appointed his mother sole executrix Of all his goods and effects, moveable and immoveable." His will was proved by the witnesses, and the deft. Robert was sworn executor, in right Of his wife as executrix of Patrick Corlett the executor of Anne Corlett, who was the executor Of the said William.
On the 14th October, 1800, the pltff. , Thomas Corlett, as the grandson and heir-at-law of the first purchaser, and nephew Of the half-blood of the said William Corlett, filed his declaration at law to recover the said William Corlett's one-twelfth part of the said intack lands, which action was resisted by the defts., upon the ground of the said Margaret being the heiress-at-law of the whole-blood, and executrix of the will of the said William Corlett ; but, upon the hearing of the cause, on the 17th February, 1801, the jury found a verdict in favour of the pltff.
NOTE.-In this ease the nephew of the half-blood to the party last seized was held to be the heir of Intack Lands, purchased by the common ancestor, in preference to the sister of the whole-blood.And a nuncupative will, made in 1764, appointing an executrix "of all goods and effects moveable and immoveable whatsoever" was not regarded as sufficient to convey "Intack Lands" previously devised to the testator by his father, who had purchased them.
The Act of Tynwald declaring purchased lands to be no longer assets in the hands of the executor, and also for regulating the proof of nuncupative wills, was passed in July, 1777. William Corlett's will purported to have been made in 1764, though not proved until 1793, eight years after the death of his mother, who was the executrix of that will.
The exhibits referred to in this case are not in the Lib. Pli., but are in a collection of Manuscript precedents in the possession of the Editor [ie Bluett].-Vol. 1 Actions Real, page 75.
SHAW, G.
The complnt. in this cause filed his bill in the Court of Chancery, stating, "himself to be the son of William Garrett, deceased, and the nephew of Philip Garrett, of Ballabrooie, in Lezayre, also deceased." And also stating, "that the deft. was the widow of the said William Garrett, deceased." The bill then charged "that the said William Garrett was, in his lifetime, entitled to the said estate of Ballabrooie, with the intacks called the Carrick, the mills in Sulby, and the lands to the same belonging; together with the lands called Kinrade's Lands, part of the quarterland of Glen Moar, as of a customary estate of inheritance." That the said William Garrett, whilst at Manchester, in England, did, by deeds of lease and release duly executed by him on the 3rd and 4th November, 1790, in consideration of natural love and affection to the complnt., and of the tie of blood, and the sum of five shillings, "grant, bargain, sell, release, and confirm," to the complnt., and his heirs and assigns, all the said before recited lands in Lezayre, to hold to him and his heirs for ever, subject to an annuity to the said William Garrett, for life, of £20. In December following, the said Philip Garrett died, and was buried in Manchester. That the said William Garrett, the deft., and others, accomplices, having found means to secrete the said deeds of lease and release, the complnt., by his guardians, Samuel Wattleworth and Daniel Stephen, on the 4th day of July, 1791, instituted a suit at law against the said William Garrett, deceased, and did afterwards file his allegations, give in bonds, and on the 1st August, 1791, file his bill in this honourable court against the said William Garrett, deceased, and against Philip Garrett, his son, accomplice and confederate, for the purpose of establishing the said deeds of lease and release, and the right of the complnt. to the said estates. That the complnt., not wishing to distress the said William Garrett, and anxious to avoid a tedious and expensive suit, did, with his guardians, enter into an agreement with the said William Garrett, deceased, on the 15th of June, 1792, by which the complnt. covenanted, "that the said William Garrett, deceased, should possess the said estates for life." and the said William Garrett, deceased, did, on his part, agree "to pay the complnt, annually the sum of £35 during his, the said William Garrett's, life ;" and did also release unto the complnt. all his, the said William Garrett's, right and interest in the said estates, except his life interest ; and did covenant "to do all in his power to discover and establish the said deeds of lease and release." That the complnt. having done so much on his part to serve the said William Garrett, deceased, and to promote the interest of the deft., who was the second wife of the said William Garrett (but not the mother of the complnt.) well hoped that he (the complnt.), on the death of the said William Garrett, would have been allowed to possess the said estates without interruption; but the said deft. alleging that she was no party to the said agreement, and that she did not execute the same, and pretending that the said deeds of lease and release had not been discovered or established, claims to be entitled to a right of dower in the said estates, as the widow of the said William Garrett, deceased ; and the said deft. is now in the actual possession of the one-half or moiety of the said lands. That the complnt. hath lately got into his possession the said deeds of grant, sale, and release, of the 4th November, 1790; but hath not been able to discover the said lease of the 3rd November, 1790, and the complnt. hath been informed that the same hath been secreted or destroyed by the said deft. and her confederates." The complnt. then prayed "that, upon due proof being made, the said lease and release might be established, and the deft. be ordered to deliver up the premises to the complnt."
Upon the 28th of July, 1802, the question of fraud was heard before a committee of the House of Keys, and they made the following report :-
"That fraud had been used to secrete the deeds of lease and release, but that it did not appear to them that the deft. had done or committed any act of fraud whatever in respect of getting possession of, or secreting, the said deed of lease."
On the 2nd December, 1802, the cause was heard upon the merits, when the deft. set up a will made by John Garrett, deceased, on the 24th February, 1754, whereby he devised certain lands, houses, &c., (which he had purchased) to his son, the said Philip Garrett, deceased, and which, on failure of issue of the said Philip Garrett, were devised over to other parties.
The Court made the following decree :-
Castle Rushen, 2nd Dec., 1802. The decree recites the will of John Garrett, the deed of release of 4th November, 1790, the draft of the release, and also the draft of the lease of the 3rd November, the agreement with the complnt's. guardians, the report of the Keys, and the pleadings in the cause, and then proceeds-
"This Court is of opinion that the deft. is not entitled to any right of dower in or upon the estate of Ballabrooie, in the proceedings mentioned, and the same is hereby ordered and decreed accordingly. But this Court is also of opinion that she, the said deft., as the widow of the said William Garrett, is entitled to a dower or widow-right, for and during her viduity, in the one-half of the lands, houses, mills, and premises, purchased by the said John Garrett, deceased, and devised by him to the said Philip Garrett, deceased, his son, and in failure of issue of the said
Philip Garrett, devised over; as in and by the said will is particularly mentioned. And the same is hereby so ordered and decreed accordingly."
"ALEX. SHAW."
From this decree the deft. appealed to his Majesty in Council, and entered into bonds in the Rolls' Office to prosecute the appeal, by lodging the same in the Council Office, obtaining an order for hearing, and serving the respndt. therewith within six months from the date, and, if the decree be affirmed, to pay costs.
The appeal was heard before the Privy Council on the 19th of July, 1804, and the judgment of the court below was affirmed.
GAWNE for Deft.
The pltff had filed his declaration in this matter seeking to recover certain lands and premises in the parish of Maughold. GAWNE, for deft., filed a special plea, stating, " that by an ordinance or remembrance of the laws of this Island, passed in the year 1593, and afterwards affirmed by an Act of Tynwald, passed in the year 1647, and by the Common Law, custom, and usage, for time immemorial, within this Isle, it is declared that if any person pretend title to lands, houses, or tenements within this Isle, and do not enter his claim, or bill, or action, in writing, for the same, within the space of twenty-one years next after he or his ancestors have been dispossessed thereof, then he, and his successors, to be utterly excluded or debarred from making any claim or title thereunto for ever ; and that it is the custom and usage, for time immemorial, and received, deemed, and taken, as and for the Common Law of the Isle, that where any person, or persons, or his or their ancestors, hath, or have been in the quiet and peaceable possession of any lands, houses, or tenements, for twenty-one years, that such person, or persons, haul, or have, an absolute right and title to such lands, houses, and tenements."
12th Oct., 1802.
Upon a hearing, the Court made the following judgment
" It appears to this Court that the matters of this plea ought to be reserved until the final hearing of this cause upon the merits ; and this plea is therefore hereby ordered to stand over and be reserved, to come on to be tried with the merits."
"JOHN LACE." 19th Oct., 1802.
Upon the cause coming on to be heard, it was, by consent of parties, referred by rule of Court to the arbitration of Norris Moore, Thomas Stowell, and Thomas Gawne, Esqs., or any two of them, and the rule of Court authorised the arbitrators to administer oaths to the witnesses as they might think necessary.
GELLING for Pltffs.
This was a suit, by petition, in which the pltff. . stated, in substance, "that Daniel Nelson, on the 4th July, 1782, mortgaged a parcel of land in the parish of Michael, to Henry Kaighin, for the sum of £16, as in the mortgage deed described. That sometime afterwards the said Henry Kaighin died, having made his will, and left the petitioner Jane executrix, whereby the pltffs. became entitled to the said mortgage, and every benefit arising therefrom. That twenty-one years had elapsed since the execution of the said mortgage, and as the said deed remained undischarged, and uncancelled upon record, that the petitioners were entitled to the land absolutely. That Simon Reid, of the said parish, was in the possession of the said lands, either as tenant or proprietor, and refused to give up possession, under pretence that he had made a legal tender, in due time, of all principal, interest, costs, and charges due on the said deed of mortgage to the petitioners, whereas the truth was contrariwise." The petitioners then prayed that they might be adjudged entitled legally to possess the said lands, under and by virtue of the said " lapsed mortgage."
28th Nov., 1803.
On this day the Deemster extended the following judgment upon the petition:-
"Upon hearing this cause on the first day of Nov., instant, in presence of the parties, and holding the same under consideration, at the deft. Simon Reid's instance, in order to give him an opportunity of filing a bill in Equity respecting the matters in issue ; but it not appearing that he has filed any such bill to this day, it is hereby ordered, that the petitioners be put into the actual possession of the lands and premises in this petition mentioned, under the lapsed mortgage therein recited, and that the said deft. do pay unto the petitioners the sum of seven shillings and sixpence costs."
" JOHN LACE."
NOTE. By the Act of Tynwald promulgated 6th July, 1835, the law as to "lapsed mortgages" is happily altered, and now, upon the expiration of twenty-one years from the date of the mortgage, the mortgagee may levy his money by execution, and thereunder sell the property given in security (or other property of the actual mortgagor), and pay himself from the proceeds, the mortgagor being entitled to the balance, if any; but at no time can he now (as heretofore) by virtue of a lapsed mortgage obtain or retain possession of the estate without regard to its relative value, to the prejudice of the mortgagor's right to redeem.-See Jeffcotf's Statutes, xxii.
9th Oct., 1804.
LACE and CRELLIN, Ds.
The declaration in this matter stated, that Jane Corkill, otherwise Karran, otherwise Kelly, wife of the deft., died in 1776, having, by her will, devised her half of certain purchased premises, in which she aqd her husband then lived, to her daughter Isabella. That being under age, her maternal uncle, the said Kelly, and P. Quayle, were sworn guardians over her in the Ecclesiastical Court, and let her half of the premises to the deft., who had ever since been in possession. In 1797, Isabella carne of age, and sold the premises to Thomas Clucas. That the said Thomas Clucas died in 1798, having made his will, and appointed the pltff. his executrix ; whereupon the pltff. became entitled to the one-half of the said premises, and the arrears of rent due thereon.
To this declaration the deft. pleaded the Statute of Limitations of 1593, and that he had been twenty-one years and upwards in the uninterrupted possession of the premises in dispute.
Upon a hearing the plea was ordered to stand over to the: merits.
9th Oct., 1804.
The cause was heard, and evidence was given shewing that the pltff's. mother died twenty-six years before action brought, and at which time the said Isabella Karran was only eleven years of age.
Upon this evidence the pltff: obtained a verdict for the premises actioned for.
Upon a complaint that the deft., had recently obstructed the pltffs. in the use of a road to which they had a right, the Deemster, upon a hearing, made the following order:-
"It appears that the occupants of Ballahashay for time immemorial have passed and repassed upon a road through the quarterland of Ballaquane (of which John Kneale is the tenant) without stop, let, or hindrance. And it also appears that the said deft. hath lately obstructed the pltffs. in the peaceable enjoyment of the said road. It is hereby ordered that the pltffs. be quieted in the possession and enjoyment of the said road, and that deft. pay seven shillings and sevenpence costs."
"JOHN LACE."
I do hereby certify that I have served John Quirk, the deft., with the above order, and likewise opened the said gap in the said road, which the said deft. had shut up, and that in presence of Wm. Cowley and John Quane.
This 14th Dec., 1804.
THOS. CRELLIN, Coroner of Glanfaba.
The pltffs. in this matter brought their petition, stating and set ting forth, that the deft. owed them £214 11 s. balance of an account delivered, and for goods shipped on account, and at the risk, of the deft., but he evaded payment upon the plea that his wife had died since the debt was contracted, and as she had appointed him executor of her will, he alleged that the petitioners must proceed in the Ecclesiastical Court, by means whereof he would, for three years, avoid payment of the petitioners' demand. Whereas the peti tioners humbly charged, that neither the death of the said Ellinor, nor the appointment of the said.Thomas Clucas as executor, could, or ought to give, jurisdiction to the Ecclesiastical Court ; but that the jurisdiction of the temporal court remained as if no such thing had happened, and petitioners humbly prayed that the deft. might be ordered to pay them the amount of their said account.
17th March, 1806.
The DEEMSTER, upon a hearing, made the following judgment:-Upon Upon hearing this petition in presence of the parties, the deft. admitted that the petitioners' account now exhibited was just, ex cepting the charge of seventy-one pounds, nine shillings, and ten pence halfpenny, being for goods sent by the sloop Jane, which had been lost upon the voyage. But the said deft. alleged that the said deft's. late wife had departed this life since the transaction of the several matters in this petition mentioned, and that she had appointed the said deft. executor of her will, and guardian of the children which they have had between them. That he proved the said will in the proper Ecclesiastical Court, and pleaded that this Court had no jurisdiction respecting the matters in issue, and that the same were properly cognizable in the proper Ecclesiastical Court. Upon consideration of all which, I am of opinion, that the said deft's., said plea to the jurisdiction of this Court, under the Common Law, ought to be overruled, and the same is, therefore, overruled accordingly. And it is further ordered that the said deft. do forthwith pay unto the petitioners the sum of £143 is. 12d. British, the amount or balance of the said account (after deducting the said sum of £71 9s. 10½d. British), together with l0s. costs. And it is also further ordered that the justice of the said sum of £71 9s. 10½d., as against the said deft., come on to be tried before a jury of merchants, in such manner, and at such time and place, as the same may hereafter be ordered and appointed." "JOHN LACE."
LIB. PLI., 10th May, 1808.
LACE, D., sitting for the Governor.
The pltfl:, on the 9th February, 1808, filed his declaration at law for damages against the deft. charging that he the deft. had, on several occasions, declared openly that he, the deft. had, at divers times and in sundry places, had criminal connexion with the pltff's. wife.
To this declaration the deft. put in a special plea, and for cause, pleaded a former action and verdict for the same matters and things. On the 8th of May following, the deft. moved to have the said plea heard, to which the pltff. objected for want of legal notice, and that the deft. had not used due diligence to bring on his plea to be argued in terms of the Statute of 1777 ; and, therefore, his plea ought to be held as abandoned and overruled.
10th May, 1808.
Upon argument the Court made the following judgment :-"I am of opinion that the said deft. has abandoned his said plea, and that the same ought not now to be argued, but to be adjudged as overruled, and the same is overruled accordingly ; and it is further ordered that this cause do come on to be heard upon the merits at or in this term, being the second court upon the said action, according to the directions of the statute hereinbefore mentioned without further notice."
" JOHN LACE."
The cause was heard upon the merits on the 10th May, and the jury awarded £150, with costs, from which verdict both parties appealed to the House of Keys, and, upon a hearing, the Keys increased the damages to £500.
The pltff. in this cause presented a petition to the Deemster, complaining, that, on the 14th December previous, his Honour had issued his warrant to convene a Jury of Inquiry, at the suit of the present deft. Cannell, to find out and discover what person or persons had taken up and concealed a pocket book, containing some notes which he forgot or mislaid in the house of John Kermode, of Port Iron. That a jury had been convened accordingly, and witnesses had been examined before them, when, in the absence of petitioner and without his knowledge, the evidence was committed to writing and the jury returned a verdict implicating the petitioner. That the petitioner feeling himself aggrieved had entered a traverse from the said verdict in the usual form, and prayed that his Honour would convene a Traverse Jury to try the legality of the said verdict at such time and place as the Deemster might see fit to appoint.
Upon consideration of this petition Deemster Lace "ordered the Coroner of Rushen to convene a jury of six good and lawful men of his sheading to appear at a court, to be holden before the Deemster, at the suit of the said Edward Christian, in order to be sworn in as a Traverse Jury to try the said verdict of the Jury of Inquiry."
KELLY for Pltff.
This was a petition charging the defts. father, son, and wife, with having committed a violent assault and battery upon the petitioner in his dwelling house.
26th Jan., 1811.
The Deemster upon a hearing, in presence of parties, ordered the defts. to be imprisoned in Castle Rushen for ten days and until they entered into bonds in the sum of £30 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour to the petitioner and all his Majesty's liege subjects ; to pay a fine of ten shillings each, and twenty shillings costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Any comments, errors or omissions
gratefully received The
Editor |
||