
    SEPTEMBER TERM, 1722.
    Richard Snowden’s Lessee against Anne Lee.
    EJECTMENT for a tract of land called Burgess’s Choice, in Anne Arundel County, containing 477 acres of land.
    At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff gave in evidence a patent of confirmation dated the 10th of April, 1708, reciting “ That Benjamin Burgess had on the 9th of Decern- “ her, 1700, obtained a special warrant to resurvey a tract “ of land lying in Anne Arundel County, called Burgess’s “ Choice, originally granted to his father, William Burgess, “ for 400 acres; that a certificate was returned whereby the “ said tract contained 347 acres of surplus, over and above “ the original quantity. That the said Benjamin had sold “ several parcels, viz. unto Richard Snowden, John Du- “ vail, Joseph Burton, Richard learns, John Jacob and “ Charles Cheney; which said Richard Snowden prayed a “ grant of confirmation for the said original quantity and “ surplus, with an exception of such part of the said ori- “ ginal as was sold by the said Benjamin to the said Du- “ vail, Benton, Icams, Jacob, and Cheney; that thereby “ he might be invested in fee, not only of such ox-iginal quan- “ tity as was sold to himself by the said Benjamin, but “ likewise of the said surplus land, and enabled to have to “ his own use a proportionable pax-t thereof, to the quantity “ by him bought of the first 400 acres, &c. Therefore “ there was granted to the said Richard Snowden as well “ the said original quaxxtity, (except such part thereof as “ was sold by the said Benjamin to the parties aforesaid,) 
      u as the whole surplus therein contained, beginning,” See. si containing 747 acres more or less.”
    The plaintiff also gave in evidence a deed dated 18th April, 1705, from Benjamin Burgess to Richard Snowden, “ for all that tract or parcel of land called the lower part a of Burgess’s Choice, beginning, &c. containing 300 acres <l more or less,” &c.
    Whereupon the defendant, by his counsel, insisted that the deed of sale from Burgess to Snowden, and the patent of confirmation to Snowden, are not sufficient to prove the title of the lessor of the plaintiff, nor to prove the issue on behalf of the plaintiff, but varies therefrom, and prayed the Justices of the Provincial Court so to direct the Jury. But they refused to give such direction to the Jury.
    Lib. P. L. No. 7. fol. 519.
    
      
       As to splitting of warrants, see Kilty’s Landholder’s Assistant, C. 18. p. 276. c. 6. p. 128.
    
   The cause was afterwards referred to three of the Justices of the Provincial Court, who awarded in favour of the plaintiff, and judgment was thereon rendered at May Term, 1724.  