1779-11-30 (static/transcriptions/1779/11/024.jpg)1779. 4 Sittings [Tuesday] Nov. 30.
the Plaintiff to procure a renewed Pottah and produce it: But it appear’d to the Court that the Quarter of a Cottah was not part of the Land in dispute, nor was in Possession of the Defendant, but always had remain’d in the Possession of the Plaintiff. it was insisted that the confusion of Ouster must be applied to this Quarter of a Cottah, as well as to the One Cottah and Three Quarters of which the Defendant now was in possession: but it was answer’d that the Description in the Plaint was “a Peice of Ground containing by Estimation two Cottahs” and it was proved that the Ground in Possession of the Defendant contain’d by Estimation two Cottahs, although, the exact measure was One Cottah and three quarters.
The title stated to the One Cottah and Three Quarters, we thought insufficient being only thirteen years possession under a Bill of Sale alledged to have been made by the Widow of the Man who sold the One Quarter, and who was Grand Mother of the Defendant and on the Evidence, we thought, even that title, defective for want of a Pottah, was not proved: there not being sufficient evidence, either of the Bill of Sale, or of the Possession.