[riddell] PRACTIC OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 51 



Vert, judgment was given that the defendant should pay four dollars 

 and a half and costs. 



Some other cases are worthy of note — for example, as shewing 

 an "Equity" practice in this Court of Common Pleas, at the Court 

 held 19th May 1791 in the case of George Lyons v. Francois Chabut 

 Esquire, we find the following as the proceedings: "That the plaintiff 

 having this day filed the affidavit of James May purporting that the 

 best and only witness to prove his demands are without the juris- 

 diction of this Court, and being willing to refer the said demand to 

 the decisive oath of the defendant, prays that a rule may be per- 

 sonally served on the said Francois Chabut, Esq., requiring him to 

 attend this Court in his proper person on Thursday the 9th of June 

 next, then here to purge himself by his corporal oath from his said 

 demand, failing whereof it shall be admitted and taken pro confesso. 

 The Court order accordingly." 



On June 9th the defendant did not appear, the declaration was 

 taken as confessed and judgment was entered ''for £26 - 10 - 4, 

 currency of New York, equal to £16 - 11 - 5 currency of Quebec, 

 with costs. The costs were taxed at £6 - 11 - 5 currency of Quebec, 

 Fi. fa. was issued and the money made in full (there is a trifling error 

 in calculation £26 - 10 - 4 N.Y. currency is equivalent to £16 - 15 

 - 2^ Quebec currency). 



On the 20th August 1789, in the action of Thomas Cox v. Guil- 

 laume Gyeaux of L'Asssomption, ''Walter Roe for the plaintiff filed his 

 Declaration and the Defendant appeared in person: — 



"As judgment was rendered the 23rd of July last against the 

 Defendant and Execution the 24th of August, and finding by the Re- 

 turn of the Sheriff that the Defendant's Goods and chattels, Lands 

 and Tenements are not sufficient to satisfy the said judgment creditor, 

 and the plaintiff's Attorney suspecting that the defendant had prop- 

 erty secreted in the hands of Joseph Pilet, he was therefore summoned 

 before the Court to give his declaration on oath, whom being called 

 and duly sworn and declared to have no effects of the Defendant's 

 in his hands at this time, nor have had at the time of the service of the 

 Declaration." 



August 20th 1789 "Isaac Dolson of L'Assomption, Yeoman, vs. 

 Joseph Perrier, dite Vadeboncœur of the River of Ecosse, Walter 

 Roe Attorney for the plaintiff, filed his declaration and the Defendant 

 being called and appeared in person and acknowledged that the plain- 

 tiff was in peacable and quiet possession of the land in question, 

 and that he did enter upon the premises in manner and in form as set 

 forth in the Plaintiff's Declaration, which being duly considered, the 

 Court ordered the Defendant to put the Plaintiff immediately in pos- 



