Difference between revisions of ".MzYwMjc.MTI2ODY4"
m (Protected ".MzYwMjc.MTI2ODY4" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
|(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)|
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
not only [
not only  to retract but had no [illegible] that
Latest revision as of 16:08, 20 April 2022
not only [unprepared?] to retract but had no idea that such would have [illegible] and what [we?] fail on a new trial he believes he could invalidate. your orator further states that some facts have lately come to his knowledge which probably would have produced a different decision from the cause had they been known - one is the jury having been adjourned to the succeeding day William McClintock the plaintiff at law was seen to have improper intercourse with them or some of them and did treat them or some of them in the said interval of adjournment, it is now known and can be satisfactorily proved that that the said McClintock [illegible] on the first morning of the Cause spoke to a tavern keeper to provide [entertainment?] and accommodation for as many as eight or ten persons during the term at the proper [costs?] & [charges?] of him the said McClintock