|New Jersey Sup. Court|
|John Holmes &
|filed Nov. 1779|
|New Jersey. Sup: Court|
|John Holmes &
|John Holmes and
|}|| New Jersey Supream Court
Sur Certiorari to John Anderson Esqr
And the said John Holmes and Solomon Ketcham by William Willcocks their Attorney, come & say that the Judgment given by John Anderson Esquire one of the Justices of the peace and for the County of Monmouth in the above cause, ought to be reversed and annulled for the following reasons
1. Because the said Action on plaint was levied and brought by the said Elisha Walton for the condemnation of certain goods wares and merchandize in the possession of and claimed by the said John and Solomon and seized by the said Elisha as coming from within the Lines of, or some place in the enemy's possession by virtue of an act of the Council and General Assembly in that case lately made and provided as said, and on the trial of said cause before the said Justice the said Elisha did not give or offer any evidence to prove that the said goods, wares and merchandize came from within the Lines, or any place within the enemy's possession.
2. Because the said Elisha did not prove or give any evidence to the said Justice and Jury sworn to try the said cause, that the said John and Solomon, or either of them brought the said goods wares and merchandize from within the Lines of. or any place in the Enemy's Possession.
3. Because the said goods were not seized by the said Elisha coming from within the Lines of, or any place in the enemy's possession.
4. Because on the trial of said cause before the said Justice, and after the said Elisha had rested his evidence, the said John and Solomon by their Attorney aforesaid did move the said Justice, that the said Elisha might become nonsuited, and the Jury be discharged from giving any verdict in said cause agreeable to the rules of Law, for want of sufficient proof to support the charge of said Elisha and the seizure aforesaid agreeable to the act of the Council and General Assembly aforesaid--but the said Justice did refuse the same, but suffered the Jury to proceed in giving their verdict as aforesaid.
5. Because the said Justice did refuse to charge the aid Jury that the said Elisha having failed in the proof of his Allegations aforesaid, the said Jury should find their verdict for the said John and Solomon against the said Elisha
6. Because the said Elisha Walton did at his own expence, and without the Consent of the said John and Solomon treat with strong Liquor the Jury sworn to try this cause after they were impannelled and appeared, and before they gave their verdict in the said cause.
7. Because the Jury sworn and who tryed the above cause, and on whose Verdict Judgment was entered, consisted of six men only, when by the Laws of the Land, it should have consisted of twelve men.
8. For that the said Justice gave Judgment for the said Elisha against the said John and Solomon, when according to the Laws and Customs of the State of New Jersey, he should have given Judgment for the said John and Solomon against the said Elisha.
Wm Willcocks Atty for Plt