
    Ezekiel Williams Clowes, an infant, &c., by Greenberry Blades and Preuda his wife, late Preuda Clowes, guardian of said E. W. Clowes, vs. Thomas L. Judge.
    
      Sussex,
    
    
      May, 1825.
    
      (In Vacation.)
    
    Bill for an injunction and an account. Upon the petition of the complainant, an infant, &c.,by his guardian, under the oath of the guardian and of her husband, (the guardian being a married woman), setting forth that the defendant “ threatens and intends to leave the State of Delaware and to withdraw himself out of the jurisdiction of the Court,” and that deponents believe that he is indebted to the complainant in the sum of $8000.00 and upwards,—a ne exeat ordered.
    
      Petition for a writ of ne exeat.—In this ease a bill in equity had been filed by the complainant, (an infant, by Greenberry Blades and Prenda his wife, guardian of the complainant) praying a writ of injunction to restrain the defendant from further digging and raising iron ore and mineral earth out of certain lands, of which the defendant then held possession, but the title to which the complainant claimed to be in himself. The bill also prayed that the defendant might be decreed to account for the value of the ore which he had already raised and taken away from the land. A preliminary injunction was ordered, according to the prayer of the bill, pending which a petition on behalf of the complainant was presented to the Chancellor, praying that a writ of ne exeat should issue against the defendant.
    The petition set forth the substance of the bill, the order for an injunction and the service thereof, as well as the service of a subpoena to answer; and then proceeded to allege as follows, viz: “ that the defendant, Judge, as “ this petitioner has been informed and doth believe, hath “ not, since the service on him of said writ of injunction, “ taken away any ore from said land. But the said Thomas “ L. Judge has lately made over, sold, and conveyed away “ all his store goods, teams and other property, in Sussex “ county; and the said Thomas L. Judge, in order to “ defeat your petitioner of the sum due to him on account “ of the ore before raised and taken away by the defendant “ from your petitioner’s land as aforesaid, for an account “ of which your petitioner has prayed in his bill aforesaid, “ and in order to defeat your petitioner in said suit in “ Chancery, and of the costs therein, he the said Thomas “ L. Judge, threatens and intends to quit and leave the “ State of Delaware, and to withdraw himself out of the “jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. And your peti- “ tioner and the aforesaid Greenberry Blades do believe “ that the sum due from said Thomas L. Judge to your “ petitioner, for and on account of the ore by him taken “ away as aforesaid,doth amount to three thousand dollars “ and upwards. Therefore he prays a writ of ne exeat “ república, &c.”
    The petition was signed, “ Ezekiel W. Clowes,by Green- “ berry Blades and Prenda his wife, late Preuda Clowes, “ guardian.” It was sworn to by Blades and wife.
    
      Robinson, for the petitioner.
    
      W. H. Wells and JEL. Wells, for the defendants. '
   The Chancellor

considered that a writ of ne exeat should be granted. The affidavit of the threats by dedefendant to leave the State was made directly, and not upon information and belief only: and it was, therefore, within the rule of the decisions. Roddam vs. Hetherington, 5 Ves. Jr. 91 n: Oldham vs. Oldham, 7 Ves. Jr. 410 : Etches vs. Lance, 7 Ves. Jr. 417 : Hannay vs. McEntire, 11 Ves. Jr. 54 : Jones vs. Alephsin 16 Ves. Jr. 470. With respect to the indebtedness, as the claim of the complainant rested in account, and was peculiarly within the defendant’s own knowledge, the Chancellor considered it sufficient that the deponents had sworn to their belief that the defendant was indebted in a sum certain, viz : $3000. Rico vs. Gaultier, 3 Atk. 501 : Russell vs. Ashby, 5 Ves. Jr. 96.

It was ordered, that a writ of ne exeat issue, and that the defendant be held to give security to the amount of $3,000.00.

See Clayton, et al., vs. Mitchell, ante, p. 32.  