dated March 22, 1779; the Parties appearing were at Ipswic on the Plea - that the Def. doth not hold of Lord in manner and proportion &c - as on file: The main issue being committed to the Jury they returned their verdict in the following words viz - In this case the Jury found that Peter Prudden v David Prudden, late of said Milford, Esq., was seized in Fee as Tenants in common of the lands in question, that on about the 4th day of Nov. 1775, the s. David Prudden died intestate, without issue leaving the said Peter Prudden a brother Mary Camp, Widow of Gideon Camp v Hannah Hall, the wife of Saml Hall, said Milford, sisters & heirs of said David Prudden and Sarah Clark one of his & the Def. the only children & heirs of Saml Prudden then dec, which S. Hannah was Brother of S. David Prudden. That on the decease of S. David Prudden his moiety of said lands went to the aforesd Peter Prudden, Sarah Camp, Hannah Hall, Sarah Clark & Hannah Prudden the Def. Had on or about the 4th day of Nov. 1779 the s. Peter Prudden died intestate & without issue, being at his death seised of his part of the premises which fell to him at the death of David Prudden & leaving the said Hannah Camp, Hannah Hall, his sisters and the said Sarah Clark & the Def's children, of his brother Saml Prudden - his heirs. That after the death of the said Peter Prudden, all the estate of the lands of S. Peter Prudden & David Prudden was divided & conveyed to the s. Hannah & Sarah Camp, Hannah Hall, Sarah Clark & Hannah Prudden, that is to say, the s. Sarah Camp has vested in her one third of said estate, the said Hannah Hall one third & the s. Sarah Clark and Hannah Prudden in right of their Father, one third. Now if the law be so, that the s. do hold one moiety of said estate, so described to them & the Def. as afores, then we find that the Def. doth said lands in manner & proportion, was not worth in the Declaration of the Plea, do find for the Def. partition of said lands in manner & form as damages and the sum of one shilling lawful money. Damages and special loss, but if the law be otherwise, that the Plea do not hold a moiety thereof, be saved for the Def. his loss. The court accept the verdict and order the same to be recorded. The Parties being fully on the law referred to in said verdict. This Court, on consideration, are of opinion, that by law is so, that the Plnt. do hold one moiety of said estate &c it is therefore considered that the Plnt. shall recover of the Def. partition of said lands in manner and form as damages and one shilling, lawful money Damage and let taxed at 1. The Def. appeals to the next Court to be held at said New Haven on the last Thursday of February next. Said Samuel Prudden, after himself bound to the Treas. of the county of New Haven in a Money of $300.00 lawful money to pro-secute this Appeal to effect and answer all Damages if he makes not his plea good. Wm Jullietting Clerk I true copy of record Exam'd By Jullietting Clerk

In this cause the Jury find, that Peter Pudden and David Pudden, both of said Milford, deceased were seized in the possession of the lands in question, and they never about their lives. On 15th December 1775, the said David Pudden died intestate without issue leaving the said Peter Pudden a brother, Mary, Sarah, Hannah, Sarah Black, and Hannah Pratt, the wife of Samuel Pratt, of said Milford, sisters to heirs of said David Pudden, and Sarah Black one of the plaintiffs and the Defendant the only children and heirs of David Pudden then deceased which said Sarah was brother of said David Pudden's heirs on the decease of said David Pudden he left of said lands vested in the appurtenances of Peter Pudden, Sarah, Hannah Pratt, Hannah Black and Samuel Pudden the remainder of the lands in question. That is about the first day of November 1777, the said Peter Pudden died intestate without issue, being at his death seized of his lands which fell to him into the hands of said David Pudden, and leaving the said Sarah Black, Hannah Pratt his sister, and the Plaintiff Sarah Black & the Defendant's children of his brother Samuel Pudden, his heirs & legal representatives. That after the death of the said Peter Pudden, all the estate of said Peter Pudden & David Pudden was divided to and settled by the said Sarah Black, Sarah Pratt, Hannah Pratt & Sarah Black & came to Pudden, that is to say, the said Sarah Black had vested in her one third of said estate, the said Hannah Pratt one third, and the said Sarah Black & Samuel Pudden in right of their sister, one third. Now if the law be so, that the Plaintiffs do hold one moiety of said estate as tenants in common and the Defendant as heir, then we find that the Plaintiffs & the Defendants do hold said lands in manner & proportion as act forth in the declaration of the plaintiff, and the sum of one shilling lawful money damages and their costs, but if the law be otherwise, that the Plaintiff do not hold a moiety thereof, we find for the Defendant his costs. General verdict: That the Law is in favor of the Plaintiff for the Defendent the land. Point submitted in the general verdict that the Law is in favor of the Plaintiff for the Defendent.