1779-12-02 (static/transcriptions/1779/12/008.jpg)

1779. 4 Sittings. Dec. 2.

closed, the Advocates for the Defendant Colonel Watson, insisted that the Plaintiff must be Non-Suited, because they had not proved that the Defendant was in possession of the House, and they said the Confession of Ouster was only [ILL] be understood of such Land as he should be proved to be in possession of. To this purpose Mr. Tilghman Advocate for the Defendant cited Buler’s Nisi Prius, 110. Smith v Man, Tr. 21 G. 2d. In which Page the words are “Though the Defendant confess Lease Entry and Ouster, yet he may Deny that he is in possession of the Premisses for which the Plaintiff goes, and put the Plaintiff upon proving it, and if he can not, he will be non-suited.” Sid dieo also, another Case, in the same page 110, immediately following the Case cited by Mr. Tilghman which seems contrary.
This Court were now of opinion that Judgment should be given for the Defendant, because it was not proved Colonel Watson was in possession of the Lands Demanded, and the Court did not think his Possession of the Ground and Tank claim’d by the Plaintiff was confessed by the general
/ confession