
    MAY TERM, 1729.
    John Digges’s Lessee against William Coomes.
    THIS was an ejectment for the tract of land called Barbadoes, situate in Charles County, part of the manor of Panguy a, containing 1,000 acres.
    At the assises held for Charles County, in April, 1729, the plaintiff offered in evidence to the Jury a grant, dated the 10th of March, 1673, to Elizabeth Wharton, from whom he deduced his title to the land in question; in which grant the tract of land called Barbadoes was described as “ Beginning on the east side óf the Main Run “ of Port Tobacco Creek, at the bound white-oak of the “ land formerly laid out for William Herd, and with the “ said Herd's line up a small branch from the said Main w Run E. to the bound gum of the said Herd, and thence “ with a continued line east and bounding on the said small “ branch for the length of six hundred and forty perches, (i to a bounded white-oak standing close by the said Main “ Run of Port Tobacco Creek as aforesaid, on the north “ thence bounding with the said Main Run to the first {{. bound tree, containing 1,000 acres.”
    And the defendant gave in evidence the survey returned to the Provincial Court in this cause of the land in dispute, and insisted, that, by the words of the plaintiff’s grant, he was to have but 1,000 acres of land called Barbadoes, part of the Manor of Panguya, and proved that the manor lines run no further from the beginning tree of Barbadoes than 640 perches; and gave in evidence, that the defendant had his Lordship’s grant, dated the 14th of October, 1725, for 275 acres of land, for which he took his defence in this suit.
    The plaintiff thereupon prayed the Judges to give in charge to the Jury, that this grant was full and conclusive evidence, that the plaintiff should run 640 perches from the gum, being the second bounded tree of the plaintiff’s pretensions, as mentioned in the return of the warrant of resurvey. Nevertheless the Justices gave in charge to the Jury the words of the grant only, without informing them that the grant was full and conclusive evidence on the behalf of the plaintiff. To which direction the plaintiff excepted.
    Verdict for the defendant.
   The exception was overruled by the Provincial Court, and judgment rendered for the defendant.

Lib. R. B. No. 2. fol. 24.  