Jeffrie vs. Joseph Robdoun
View original image: Page  055
[missing figure]
Jeffreyvs
Ra bidoux

Suit for freedom to
aide the proceedings for the
following

1 Because the Record shows that thissuit
prosecuted by an Infants any Guardian
or nextfriend legally appointed

2 because it appears by the record that the
Replication to defendant pleas was by attorny
& not by guardian.

Where party may believed on motion Su Salk 98 264 - & letter as Mundall/ & Bap & Pal
427 - also Open him as HarrisonHarrison / Barr 20
Denton us Mop C Islmeson 29G opinion of Nammup
LodgealsosueRodgers vs Jenkins - 3 Easts 384
2 East 110 589 / Comyns Length 648 -

It is said because in Comyon/ 648 that an infants
in wighed to be come bail may be relieved from
a judgement obtained againsts him as such bail
by AuditaGurela and In the Case of Sisten
vs Mundall / Bop & Pul 427 the Courtsdetermine
" that it is the modern practice to interpose in a summary
- in all cases where the party would be
intilted too relief in an Lurla.

I believe the a have an thousand will show that
the proceeding ought to aside for irregulatory
the papers show that Jeffrey was an infants & this
courts is not to pronounce that he is now of age
Jeffries name was then used any legal
authority

View original image: Page  056
[missing figure]

and I have not been able to find our case in all
the books where the courts has refused to setaside
proceedings where they are founded on defenitive process
or where the name of the party has been used
without authority on Motion. I should
from this rule the case where a
attorney appears for his clients that authority
the courts have in some instanceslifts the party to
thus remedy against the attorney. Both in this case
by the decision complained of the plaintiff is
& can have no remedy - If he could
maintain a suits many could not
him for the loss of his freedom.

G A Bria for
Jeffrey