
    Cockey, et al. Lessee vs. Smith.
    ■ A item, from Baltimore County Court, from ajudgmertt obtained by the defendant in that court, (now appellee,} te writer. of rtete,.:?,;;: te i.-GW-tv ©, feati of laudl waiter .'/■:iv; led -i.‘¡/i «><fíXr;/te te:'crn>G"?i. Defence vac / . T.„ 0 rv.ru , > 'S 'fc*o *ipr«£& The1 pifsin^fiT ai: tec irte- rr ó ¡n cafeteare l yfeote, to.’ /fes'nUiñ’s Jleglsd eG’iI í-.p hc./'e, tete1;/*;;-,.;;,, ¿o Joint Oocken the S3** of /'fete id)3, AVad gavr in *wide?fet:s teat the same was fee'y tecteod hr hi*» on lbs Bifes, It teas admitted, fhfe rter, fee tesfehriion of this-’ site l John Hockey, the patentee,, tefe, and (hat the (¡aiidos, trabe since his death, ware bits ttevisefá as:? legal represent,afr/ess, The áeíendant theta /’■:;*i'¡ hi evidence two patents, one for Gibson’s Forest¡ ¿■vnícíi to Mites Hibson the 3d of April 1708. and tb© ferie s' !«r Warner’s Chance. granted to John Warper Hie. »*d cf K4areb JV11. And proved that she had truly Sc--these tracts on (ha plots- She further gave in (wife tUñk.w-, teste ‘Thomas Franklin was possessed of part of rises'1 fi?iKls from about the year 1765, until the time of !ih /fetefe ami that those claiming ander him had been isrpos* "’ts rio,: ef tiiem BilíH the present time? and that rise the úeJsudant was the only heir and representative of said l-mpidín, The defendant then, without baying produced ji- offered .any evidence that John Clarke had derived any íífie teco* the. alleged patentee» of Gibson’s Forest arfe (ÁdiméTíi Chance, or that Clarke ever liad been in pof - ©¿■¿Mon «I said two tracts of land, or any part thereof, ote iMved to read in evidence a deed from Clarke in Franldl'fbv (he said two tracts of land, dated the 2d of Aagusf; fetelfe W the purpose of proving in what manner and te!; write fime Frankkn came into possession of said laude -• To iiís reading this deed in evidence the plaintiff objected, /teics the Court, [^Nicholson, Ch. J.'j overruled the cbpeü©vi. ,v»d ¡oamuiíed the deed to be given in evidence ibr titers jXJvpwcs eibrsmid. The plaintiff excepte»;; sed the vertefe fe./ri Judgment bring against iisEy, ¡as anyestedl te? tbbj sour,
    
      The defendant h\ an action of ejectment, having read in evidence a evant of the land »n dispute to M G in 370R, proved that T F was in possession of part of the land from 3765 to the time ofhis death, and that those claiming tinder him had been in possession ever since,and that the1 de» fendant wa9 the only heir of T. F. He tin n, without showing any title or possession in J C, offered read in evidence a deed for said land from .1 C to Y F in 3765, for the purpose of proving in what manner and at what time T F came Into possession of the i&nd. Hclxlt that ito: s>ucil a purpose Ik® deed might he read in evidence*
    
      "“rio csese 'u'f.s argue» riefurs tencí?/,?-/©'/, fe rr.ife fe.»; a-Toy ¡oad riteim:© #., by
    Trite.:;.,, ter tec teypeFin.ite;
    ©ate |>y
    
      Weils,in. tei rim tepBfeb.e,
   OTTSKJ-OKFS'P WFTfeEite  