Jack v. Barnabas Harris
View original image: Page  033
[missing figure]
JackJack vs Hyatt

Reasons for a new trial

1. The vedict is against evridence in this that the person under whese deft claims do not prectend to claim under any sale in KentuckyKentucky. but under the settlement made by Elisabeth Bond who and point of law clearly had neither right nor power to see,

2. The marriage contract subsequent proceeding destroy all pretense of right in HarrisHarris by virtue of sale, in KentuckyKentucky.

3. It was proved that there was a bill of sale in to Proctor
and HubbardHubbard and therefor the jury should have regarded the so proper evidence, of that sale.

4. The court misdirected the jury in this towit that if they believe the sale in kentucky was intended as a fraud upon all the world that still it was good if JackJack