1781-03-10 (static/transcriptions/1781/03/007.jpg)

1781. 2 Term. [Saturday] March 10.

and the payment of the Money, but he also proved that the Defendant was put in possession of the office, and had received some small profits from it. The Defendant’s Councel stated that the Plaintiff had been turn’d out for Extortion, but that was not proved.
Impey. The whole is a very corrupt and scandalous Transaction on both sides, but Mr. Brix puts his case on the Agreement to return the Money if the Plaintiff was not put in possession of the office, and on the Evidence of the Witness for the Plaintiff, it appears he was in possession of the office, so that by the Agreement it was not the case in which the Money was to be return’d: therefore let there be Judgment for the Defendant. The Plaintiff does not desire a Non-Suit, and it is better to put an end to the Cause by a Judgment for the Defendant than to encourage another Action by a Non-Suit.
Judgment for the Defendant.