Case ID: h-mch_1/html/0006-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

At a Provincial Court held at St. Clement’s Manor in St. Mary’s County,
    on Tuesday February 28, 1659.
    Present — His Excellency Josias Fendall, Esq. Governor an¿ Chief Justice.
    fPhilip Calvert, Esq. Secretary," I Mr. Thomas Gerard, Col. John Price, • The Hon. Mr. Robert Clearke, I Dr. Luke Barber, Col. Nathaniel Utye, l_Mr. Baker Brooke, Esquires, Councillors.
    
    Thomas Gerard, Esq. against Willan and Lindsey.
    UPON the motion of Thomas Gerard, Esq. to the Governor and Council shewing how that he formerly commenced suit against Mr. Richard Willan and Mr. James Lindsey, concerning his title to Snow Hill, and at the Court holden at St. Mary’s, 2d of March, 1638, Philip Calvert, Esq. concerned in that cause, appealed to his Lordship in England, and his Lordship’s determination of the cause between him and the aforesaid parties being sent in from his said Lordship, he humbly craveth the judgment of the Governor and Council, to declare whether that determination of the cause as aforesaid, shall be entered upon record, as a final determination of the cause, yea, or no ?
    And upon some quere, whether an appeal was admitted or granted for the determination of the whole business, or only for his Lordship to declare where his Lordship’s Manor of Snow Hill is. The Clerk’s foul notes being called for and read, where these words following are not inserted in that former order, nor sent to his Lordship in England, viz.
    “ The plaintiff makes appear to the Court, that his wife is the next heir that appeareth in this province, being sis-
      u ter to him that took up the land now in dispute and the ee plaintiff is admitted by the Board to be heir at law in right “ of his wife till a brother (there being two yet supposed “ to be living) makes claim of the same.”
    And being'put to vote, the judgment of the Counselis :
    Mr. Baker Brooke. Not; because the whole business was not sent home to his Lordship.
    Mr. Robert Clearke. Not; for the same reason.
    Col. Nathaniel Utye. Not ; the business being not fully sent home, nor appeal granted for to have the whole business determined concerning the land j but only where his Lordship’s Manor of Snow Hill is.
    Col. John Price. No final determination.
    Dr. Luke Barber. The same.
    Governor. No final determination.
    But ordered to be entered upon record, though not as a final determination. And further ordered, that summons issue to Mr. Richard Willan and Mr. James Lindsey, ad audiendum judicias next Provincial Court.
   The determination of the cause touching Snow Hill, betwixt Thomas Gerard, Esquire, plaintiff, and James Lindsey and Richard Willan, defendants, made by the Right Honourable the Lord Baltimore, Lord Proprietary of Maryland, to whom it was referred by appeal.

Having perused the state of the case concerning Snow Hill, between Thomas Gerard, Esquire, plaintiff, and Richard Willan and James Lindsey, defendants, sent unto us by way of appeal, from our Provincial Court of Maryland., and finding it not proved by the plaintiff, that Susan, his wife, in whose right he claims as heir at law to her bro« ther Abel, is heir to Abel Snow, but are fully satisfied by the notoriety of the thing, that she is not, he having a brother or brothers of the whole blood yet living, and finding that the said land was forfeited to us by the act for deserted plantations ; for by the copy of the record sent unto us, and attested by the plaintiff, we find that the plaintiff entered his claim to the said lands as heir at law in right of his wife and children, not until the 20th of March, 1651, and that by the act for deserted plantations, he ought to have entered and made his claim good, and paid all arrears of rent before the 25th of March, 1651, which, according to the English account, which begins the year of our Lord on the 25th of March, and, according to the true intent and meaning of the said act, was near a year after it should have been done, and that the said land was accordingly seized by us and granted to the defendants..

We do determine, that the plaintiff hath no title to the said plantation. Given under our hand and seal at arms this 11th day of August, 1659.

C. Baltimore.

Vide Lib. S. fol. 371. one of the Court of Appeals Records.