Case ID: nc_3/html/0219-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Hal}, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hillsborough,
    October Term, 1802.
    
      Young, Miller & Co. vs. Farrel, administrator of Jordan.
    
    A CTION of debt on a bond ;. and amongst other things,, the, defendant plead, d,. Iully administered, and the act of 171 á» Replication and issue.
    The plaintiff proved- on the first plea, that after the debt contracted, Jordan gave Negroes to his daughter, married to Farrel, and that- Farrel sold them before his death: and as to the second plea, the plaintiffs, counsel insisted that the act was not in force, or if it was, that it, did not run on, until plaintiffs had it in their power to.sue; which in fact they had not till 1796 : for in that year was the first recovery effected by persons who, like them, had been attached to the British nation during the late war.
    
      E. contra it was said, that the replication as here entered, without the word, special, preceding it,, was to betaken according to the practice of our courts as a general replication, denying tbe truth of the plea under tbe act of 1715, and that ho evidence could be given of any special fact to avoid the act, such as.disability to sue, &c.
   Hal}, Judge.

As to tbe evidence in the first place, it cannot be regarded by the jury ; they have nothing to do with it: And as' to the replication, the act of 1715 is in force ; the jury are to say •whether the act bars the plaintiff’s claim.

From this charge, the reporter inferred the opinion of his Honor to be, that the replication thus entered was to be considered as a general one, denying the matter of the plea, and not as introducing any new matter by way of avoidance.