Case ID: h-mch_3/html/0576-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "(Duvall, J.)", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1797.
    
    Stephen G. Gill’s Lessee against Giles Cole.
    EJECTMENT for two tracts of land called The Land of Strife, and Cole's Struggle, both lying in Baltimore county. The defendant took defence upon plats, and judgment was entere-d against the casual ejector for all lands undefended, and the verdict was for the plaintiff, for the lands for which defence was taken, and judgment thereupon.
    By the bill of exception taken in the cause it appears, the defendant at the trial offered from the plot produced, being a plot returned in this cause at May term, 1796, to show the direction which a line would have if run according to the proof in the cause given at the two points, red D. and red E. according to the green line S. to 60. But it appearing to the court that after the said location had been made in the said plot, by the surveyor for the plaintiff, and after the May term, 1796, the plaintiff’s counsel had, upon leave given to add to and amend the plots returned in the cause at May term, 1796, some time on or about the 27th of August, 1786, explained to the surveyor by his instructions, that he had misunderstood his former instructions, and had made the said location contrary to his intentions, and had directed the surveyor to erase the said location, and to make a new location according to directions then given; and it appearing further that the said surveyor had accordingly amended the plots, which had come to his possession according to the last instructions given by the plaintiff’s counsel, and had returned such amended plots in this cause ; but that the plot produced had not been amended, either because the surveyor could not obtain it for the purpose, or from his being directed by the opposite counsel pot to amend it.
   The Court

(Duvall, J.)

was of opinion it could not be considered as a plot filed in this cause, and that the defendant was not at liberty to show the said plot to the jury for the purpose aforesaid.

Martin (Attorney-General) and Key, for the plaintiff.

Mason, for the defendant.

To this opinion the defendant excepted, and ap» pealed to the court of appeals, in which court the judgment was affirmed at June term, 1800.