goose
Return to Currituck Co.

North Carolina Higher Court Minutes
Source: NC Higher Court Minutes; Vol. 5. (1709-1723)
Abstracted by Wm. S. Price from North Carolina Colonial Records (Second Series)

July 1718

WALLIS vs. _________

(Torn) Precinct of Currytuck in the (torn) John WALLIS (torn) said Plaintiff by (torn) render unto (torn) England which (torn) was the said (torn) by his Certain bill Sign’d by the said Defendant whose date is the dame day and year aforesaid which bill is fil’d in the Office of the Court became Indebted to the said Plaintiff in the said summ of Nine pounds and twelve shillings as aforesaid to be paid to the said Plaintiff when the said Defendant should be thereto requested after the last of May then next Ensuing the Date Yet nevertheless the said Defendant the said summ of 9 pounds 12 shillings to the Plaintiff hath not paid but the same to Pay hath Deny’d and Still doth Deny tho’ often thereunto requested whereupon the Plaintiff Saith he is Damnify’d Eighteen Pounds and thereupon he brings this Suit etc.

Order vs. Marshall

And the Defendant being solemnly call’d came not nor did the Marshall make return of bond and Security taken for the Defendants Appearance as by Law he ought to have done wherefore the Plaintiff was putt to his Choice either to have an Order against the Marshall with Stay of Execution till the next Court or an Attachment against the Defendants Estate and the Plaintiff aforesaid making Choice of an Order against the Marshall. It is therefore Order’d that the Provost Marshall of Bath County have the body of the said Defendant at the next Court Otherwise Judgement to be Confirm’d against the Marshall for the aforesaid Debt with Cost Whereupon the Marshall pray’d an Attachment against the Estate of the Defendant for the Debt and Costs aforesaid so as to Compell him to Appear etc. Which was Granted.

JARVIS vs. TULL

Frances JARVIS and Eliza His Wife are Plaintiffs and Benjamin TULL and Susanah his wif are Defendants in a Plea of Trespass Assault and Battery wounding and maiming etc. And whereupon the said Plaintiff by Thos. Swann their Attorney Complains against the Defendant for what whsereas the said Susanah at Currytuck in the Province aforesaid and within the Jurisdiction of this Court on the 14 day of May 1717 by force of Armes etc. on the Plaintiff Elizabeth an Assault did make and he the said Elizabeth did then and there with Swords, Staves, Knives and Cudgells violently and outragiously Assault Beat wound maim and evill Intreat so that of her Life she did greatly Dispair and other Enormity to her then and there she Offer’d Contrary to the Peace of our Sovereitn Lord the King that now is and to the Plaintiffs damage Two Hundred Pounds Sterling and thereupon this their Suit is Produced etc.

Order vs. Marshall

And the said Defendant being Solemnly Call’d Came not not did the Marshall make return of bond and Security taken for the Defendants Appearance as by Law he Ought to have done whserefore the Plaintiff was putt to his Choice either to have an Order against the Marshsall with Stay of Execution till the next Court or an Attachment against the Defendants Estate, and the Plaintiff aforesaid making Choice of an Order against the Marshall It is therefore Order’d that the Marshall of Albermarle County have the body of the said Defendant at the next Court (torn) Judgement to be Confirm’d against the Marshall for the aforesaid Debt (torn) whereupon the Marshall pray’d an Attachment against (torn) for the Debt and Costs aforesaid so as to Compell him to (torn) Which was Granted.

 

DAVIS vs. POYNER

Thomas DAVIS comes to Prosecute his writt of Error (torn) verdict passed in the Precinct Court of Currytuck (torn) against him the said Thos. DAVIS in a case wherein the (torn) Plaintiff against Thos. JOYNER in a Plea of Debt. Etc.

And the said Thos. DAVIS by Thos. SWANN his (torn) Court (torn) Record of the Proceedings of the said Court (torn) Commenced by the said Thomas DAVIS (torn) following Videlicet (torn) the Precinct of (torn) Collonel Wm. (torn) TAYLOR Captain (torn) Wm. POYNER (torn) POYNER (torn) and the (torn) .....Saith etc. and the said Thos. POYNER saith Action Not because that he the said Thos. Neither bought nor Sould nor any ways contracted with the Plaintiff for the said Five Pounds Sterling sett forth in the Plaintiffs Declaration and that the bill is not Lawfully the Defendants Act and Deed.

Thos. POYNER Defendant

And the aforesaid Plaintiff by Thos. SWANN his Attorney saith that he ought not to be barr’d by an thing aforesaid because he saith that the bill and obligation mention’d in the Declaration is the proper bill of the Defendant and this he prays may be Enquired of by the Country and the Defendant likewise.

A Jury being accordingly Impanl’d whose Names are as followeth Videlicet: Mr. Joseph SANDERSON foreman,  Mr. Rd. BALANCE, Mr. Alexr. MACCOY, Mr. Jno. CRABB, Mr. Wm. WILLIAMS, Mr. Samll. BALANCE, Mr. Jno JONES, Mr. Webly PEAVY, Mr. Ambross MACCOY, Mr. Thos. HAMAN, Mr. Rd. DAUGE, Mr. Petr. DAUGE being sworn to try the issue joyn’d and having their Charge were sent out to consider therefore who return’d this Verdict We of the Jury being all agreed do find no Cause of Action Joseph SANDERSON foreman. Wherefore it’s Order’d that the Verdict be Recorded which was accordingly done.
    Vera Copia           Jos. WICKER      Clerk Curiae

And Saith that in the Record Process and verdict and also in giving of Judgement aforesaid it is manifestly Erred.

First… In this that is to Say That whereas the said Thos. DAVIS in his Declaration saith that the said Thos. POYNER was justly indebted to the said Thos. DAVIS in the summ of Five Pounds Sterling and the said Thos. POYNER appearing in his own person and for Plea saith that the bill mention’d in the Plaintiffs Declaration is not his Lawfull Act and Deed, and the said Thomas DAVIS saith he ought not to be barr’d by any thing aforesaid because he saith that the bill and obligation in his Declaration is the proper bill of the said Defendant and this he prays may be Enquired of by the Country and the Defendant likewise. Now the Issue being whether it were the Defendants bill or not the Court ought not to have received any forreign Evidence but such as amounted to the proof of the Issue Joyn’d.

2) In this also It is Erred in Swearing two Evidences to prove the Consideration of the said Bill when the Issue was whether the Bill was the Defendants Bill or not.

3) In this also It is Erred in Directing the Jury to Observe the Stress of the Evidence in proving the Consideration when that was quite otherwise.

4) In this also It is Err’d in Swearing more than One Jurror at a time.

5) In this also It is Err’d the Jury finding for neither Plaintiff nor Defendant it was an Imperfect virdict and the Court ought to have sent them out again with Directions to have brought in for the one or the other.

6) In this also It is Err’d in receiving the said Imperfect Verdict and Ordering the Same to be Recorded (torn) so It is Err’d in Dismissing the said Suit and letting the Partys go without day (torn) a Determination was made in Court one way or other.

(Torn) those Causes the Judgement and Verdict aforesaid and all thereon Depending upon (torn) Spoken done and Exhibited is not Sufficient in Law and he the said (torn) prayeth that the said Judgement and Verdict aforesaid for the Errors (torn) Process and Verdict aforesaid being be Annulled and utterly (torn) unto all which by the Occasions of the Same (torn) he lost and paid he be Restored and further the (torn) of the King to warn the said ThosS. POYNER that he (torn) Justice and his Assistants at the next Generall Court at (torn) hear the Record and Process aforesaid and also the (torn) what should be just in the Premise (torn) POYNER being Solemnly call’d (torn) pass’d in the Precinct (torn) Thos. DAVIS be (torn) that the said Thos. (torn)

TOOKE vs. WHITBEY

James TOOKE Merchant complains of John WHITBEY of Currytuck Precinct in the County of Albemarle in the Province of North Carolina Planter in the Custody of the Marshall etc. For that whereas the said James the Seven and twentyeth day of September Anno Domini 1712 at Currytuck aforesaid at the Speciall Instance and request of him the said John sold and deliver’d to him the said John Divers goods Wares and Merchandizes to the value of Eight pounds Four shillings and Six pence Lawfull money of this Province a particular account whereof is filed in this Court and herewith Produced and the aforesaid John then and there Videlicet on the aforesaid Seven and Twentieth day of September at Currytuck aforesaid on himseld did Assume and to the aforesaid James then and there did faithfully promise that he the said John the aforesaid Eight Pounds Four shillings and Six pence to the aforesaid James when he should be required would and truly Pay and Content Nevertheless the aforesaid John having little regard to his aforesaid promise and Assumption but Deceitfully and fraudulently intending him the said James to Deceive and defraud of the said eight Pounds Four shillings and Six pence has not as yet paid the same altho’ he has been often thereunto requested but always refused and yet doth refuse to pay the same whereupon the said James saith he is Detrimented and has Damage to the value of Sixteen Pounds and thereupon this his Suit is produced etc.
    Danll. RICHARDSON for the Plaintiff

Attachment: And the Defendant (WHITBEY) being solemnly call’d came not and the Marshall having made returne of the writt aforesaid that he had Left Coppy thereof at the Defendants Abode the Plaintiff pray’d an Attachment against the Defendants Estate for the debt and Costs so as to Compell him to Appear etc. Which was Granted

BOYD vidua Administratrix vs. WHEDBEE

Winfred BOYD widow Administratrix of the goods and Chattells rights and creditts of Collonel Thomas BOYD Esqr. her late husband deceased Complains of John WHEDBEE of Currytuck in the County of Albemarle and Province aforesaid Planter in the Custody of the Marshall etc. For that whereas the said John at Currytuck aforesaid became indebted to him the said Thomas in the summ of Two pounds Twelve shillings and Six pence current money of this Province for Sundry barrells had and receiv’d of and from the aforesaid Thomas by him the said John as by an Account bearing date in October One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirteen and ready in Court to be produced may and doth appear and the said John did (torn) and there promise and assume to pay to him the said Thom(torn) Two pounds Twelve shillings and Six pence when he should (torn) requested yet notwithstanding such his promise and Assumption (torn) regarding the same the said Two pounds Twelve shillings (torn) he did not pay in the life time of the said Thomas (torn) Thomas nor since his death to the said Winifred (torn) has been often requested by eath of them to do (torn) has refused and yet does refuse to pay the same (torn) Winifred saith she is Detrimented and has damage (torn) Five pounds and is in delay of her said Administration (torn) Suit is produced etc.
    Daniel (torn)

(Torn) Solemnly call’d came (torn) he had (torn) him aforesaid (torn) appear etc.

BOYD vidua Administratrix etc. v. WHEDBEE

Winfred BOYD widow Administratrix of the goods and chattells rights and creditts of Collonel Thomas BOYD Esquire her late husband deceased Complains of John WHEDBEE of Currytuck Precinct in the County of Albemarle and Province aforesaid Planter in the Custody of the Marshall etc. of a Plea that he render unto her Twelve Pounds and Fifteen shillings in good Merchantable Pitch which he owes unto her and unjustly detains for that whsereas the said John by his certain writing obligatory bearing date the third day of Augst. One thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen seal’d with his Seal and now in Court and ready to be produced did oblige himself his Heirs Executors Administrators to pay or cause to be paid when he should be thereunto demanded the aforesaid Twelve Pounds and Fifteen shillings to the said Thomas BOYD his Heirs and Assignes yet the said John altho’ he often was demanded thereto in the life time of the said Thomas by the said Thomas and since his death by the said Winifred the said twelve pounds and fifteen shillings has not as yet paid but the same has hitherto always refused and still doth refuse to pay to the damage of the said Winifred and is in delay of her Administration and thereupon this her Suit is produced etc.
    Daniel RICHARDSON for the Plaintiff

Attachment: And the said Defendant being solemnly call’d came not and the Marshall having made returne of the writt aforesaid that he had left Coppys thereof at the Defendants Abode. The Plaintiff pray’d an Attachment against the Defendants Estate for the aforesaid Debt and Costs so as to Compell him to Appear etc. Which is Granted.

Adjourn’d to the Court in Course

Permission kindly given by Donna E. Kelly, Administrator Historical Publications Section N.C. Office of Archives and History Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, NC.  Be sure to visit their publications site at: www.ncpublications.com.  These records were submitted by Judy BrickhouseNo part of these records may be used for any commercial purposes. However, please feel free to copy any of this material for your own personal use and family research.

USGenWeb

NCGenWeb

USGenWeb

Return to USGenWeb

Return to NCGenWeb

Return to Currituck

© 2006 Kay Midgett Sheppard