Fatio vs. Dewees

Fatio vs. Dewees

Lower Court

  • St. Johns County

Date

  • 1838

Box

  • 476

Folder

  • 864

Transcript

This day came the parties by their attornies, and the defendant moved for a new trial.

And afterward, to wit, on the ninth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and Twenty nine the said defendant by Charles Downing his attorney brought and filed in the Clerks Office aforesaid his reasons for a new trial, which said reasons are in the words and figures following, to wit,

Fatio Tenant

ads.

Dewees and others

In Ejectment

In this case the defendant by his attorney moves the court for a new trial for the following reasons, to wit,

First. That the verdict is against Law

Secondly. That it is against evidence

Thirdly. Because the court misinstructed the Jury, by directing them that if Mrs. Catalinia Chicken or Dewees accepted the will (and acted under it) of her deceased husband Andrew Dewees, that then she the said widow did by that act forfeit all claims which she possessed under the Spanish Law to the moiety of lands granted to her said husband by the Spanish Government.

Fourthly That some of the Jury who found the verdict in this case have declared, That it was their belief, that the widow aforesaid C Chicken was in Law seized and possessed of one moiety of the Land: so granted to her deceased husband and that the said moiety had been by her property sold and conveyed to Forbes under whom the defendant claims and that they thought that the effect of their verdict as rendered was to give to the said defendant the moiety of the said land which belonged to the said Catalinia Chicken or Dewees otherwise they would not have agreed to the said verdict

C. Downing attor: for deft: