maintain him in his elevated rank! Personally appeared the magnificent among his countrymen, M. Joseph Cams Suter, Consulgeneral of Spain, in the said district, who being personally present in the above mentioned assembly of testimonies, has certified against himself, of his own free will, without being in any manner constrained to what is hereinafter set forth, (which makes this attestation the more legal and proper) that he has appointed to be his attorney and Lieutenant in his place and in the place of his person, Mr. Michael Thalamas, in order that he may act in his place as his substitute, in all matters, circumstances and business that may concern him in the city of Berouth. Now, he has appointed him to fill his place, according to the tenor of the bull and noble firmaun; (a) giving him a general and absolute procuration concerning any thing whatever that may belong to the Consular office, and has constituted him in his place and stead; acknowledging all that he may say or do, and he has conferred upon him every power which the law requires in similar cases, with with the most complete permission; so as he has declared and protested; which declarations and protestations are juridically acknowledged sufficient for similar things. And his testimony on this subject has been affirmed against him, in the presence of the above written Judge, our Master, who has decided agreeably to this testimony, confirming the same and giving it the form of a judgment according to the form prescribed by law.

This has taken place and been written on the fifteenth day of the month of Djoumad, (first of August) one of the months of the year 121, (1804).

(a) The Sultan's Exequatur.

This was an action of Debt on a Testamentary Bond, to recover a legacy. The defendant pleaded a general performance, to which there was a replication on the part of the plaintiff: a rejoinder, no assets and payment: surrejoinder, assets and non-payment.

THE plaintiff contended, that according to the pleadings, it was incumbent upon the opposite party to show that he had legally discharged himself from the claim. Swinb. Test. 420, and 14 Vin. 466. tit. "Inventory" were cited, that a legatee shall recover of an executor who has returned no inventory.

For the defendant, it was urged that proof of assets lay on the plaintiff, whether a legatee or distributee; and that a defendant could not be put to prove a negative. The Court was prayed for a direction, that before the plaintiff could recover in this action, he must prove assets in the defendant's hands: which direction the Court refused to give,

The defendant then offered to prove, that nothing came to his hands, except evidences of debts, which were afterwards paid to

* From the Notes of the late Judge Sprigg.

him in Continental money. But per Cur. this evidence is inadmissible. Under the plea of payment, the defendant's account of payment made by him was admitted: and if proved, would have been received by order of the Court.

Verdiet for the Plaintiffs. Martin for plaintiffs: Johnson & Hollingsworth for defendant.

Beall v. Beall, Adm. of security to Testamentary Bond.

An action of Debt on a Testamentary Bond to recover a distributive share after payment of debts. General Performance and Limitations. Replications: Rejoinders: Payment, &c.

No account was settled in the Orphans' Court, by the Executrix, but other evidence was admitted by the court of payment of debts by her.

The defendant's offered a copy of a judgment against Sarah Beall, (not Sarah Beal, executrix); and parol evidence that it was recovcred on a debt of the testator..

The Court thought parole evidence that the testator owed a sum of money, which the Executrix had since paid, was admissiblę : the admission of the Executrix, on which judgment may have been entered in a Court of Law, in her own name, is not evidence against her.

Verdict for Defendant.

Shaaf & Johnson, for plaintiff: Mason, for defendant.

Stephen B. Gill, vs. Giles Cole.

An action of trespass, brought 31st March, 1801, for removing a fence. The plaintiff had recovered land from the defendant, by a judgment in ejectment in this Court, which judgment was

afterwards affirmed in the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the writ of Error, the defendant had removed the fence from the land. It was admitted that the plaintiff had brought an action in July 1801, against the defendant in the Baltimore County Court, of trespass for mesne profits from 10th June 1793 to 29th October 1800: and judgment was confessed, Nov. 1802, for 30 dollars.

The defendant contended, that this recovery was a bar to the present action; and Run. on Eject. 164-6. was cited to prove, that trespass for mesne profits is commensurate with all injuries done, or profits withheld, during the time laid in the demise.

But the Court were of opinon that in an action for the mesne profits, the plaintiff recovers damages for the use and occupation of the land; and that a recovery in such an action, is no bar to an action of trespass for a trespass committed during the time for which the recovery was had for the mesne profits: the Court were also of opinion, that the removal of the fence in this cases was a trespass, unless it should appear to the jury, that such reremoval was necessary for using and cultivating the land, and was made for that purpose.

Verdict for the Plaintiff.

P. B. Key, for plaintiff: Hollingsworth, for defendant.

Gaither, ad sectam of certain Negroes.

This was an appeal from a decision of the County Court of Anite: Arundel.

A deed of manumission under the act of 1752, (included in the act of 1796) had been executed in the presence of two persons, one of whom signed it as such, but the other did not. This was held a good deed.

But per Curiam, Two witnesses at the execution and subscribing the deed, as such, are necessary.

Judgment below reversed!

Ringgold's Lessee, vs. Cheney.

Ejectment. Defence on Warrant. This action was brought to recover Lot No. 2, part of Conicocheague Manor. 3d November, 1768, a patent for this manor issued to John Moreton Jordan, under whom the Lessors of the plaintiff claim. Defence for "Cheney's Delight," and "Long looked for come at last." 16th July, 1752, a warrant issued. Nov. Certificate returned, land called Cheney's Delight. 17th April, 1762, the composition money was paid. No patent was issued, because it was believed to lie within the reserves of Conicocheague manor. 21st December, 1769, certificate for "Long looked for come at last." 1st July, 1771, a patent issued for forty-one acres.

The defendant protected himself under adversary possession. Witnesses proved possession between twenty and thirty years, and by inclosures for part, as marked on the plat, for more than 20 years that Jordan, and Ringgold, his grantce, had claimed part of Cheney's Delight, as within the lines of Conicoheague Manor: had seen Ringgold, whose will was proved in 1774, on the ma

nor.

The defendant, to have the benefit of a bill of exceptions, then prayed the Court to direct the Jury that possession for 20 years of the uninclosed land defended, was a good bar against a legal title in the plaintiff.

But the Court said, nothing but adversary possession, by actual inclosures, would bar a legal title.

The plaintiff gave up the land inclosed, and took a verdict for the residue.

Lodge & Co. vs.

Per Cur. Indebitatus assumpsit will not lie against an heir for debt of his ancestor.

Non Pros.