1791-11-24 (static/transcriptions/1791/11/291.jpg)

(333

For Deft – No 2. Defendant’s Answer.
have refused to delvier up the same to the Complainants the said United Company and to cancel the same and this Defendant admits that she did threaten to proceed upon the said Bond by an Action on the Plea side of this Honourable Court and has actually so proceeded and recovered a Judgment on such Bond against the Complainant the said United Company And this Defendant will as she humbly insists She is entitled to do proceed to Issue Execution upon such Judgment unless She is restrained therefrom by the Injunction of this Honourable Court And this Defendant admits that she does give out and insist that the said two Deeds called Hebanama and Ekrauraum are valid and good and legal Deeds or Instruments executed by the said Shabaz Beg Khan in his life time and that the same were as this Defendant is advised and believes well and sufficiently and respectively proved so to be at the Trial of the said Action at Law but this Defendant does not pretend that they were proved at the Trial of the said Indictment because no such Trial ever took place And this Defendant denies it to be true neither of the said Deeds or Instruments are valid or legal Instruments And also denies that the same were forged by this Defendant or the said Cojah Zekeriah or by any other person or Persons with the Consent and approbation of and in leagure and Confederacy with this Defendant And this Defendant further denies that the proof of their validity for which this Defendant insists was given at the aforesaid