Kent v. Smith

Suffolk County Court

Kent v. Smith

1 Rec. Co. Ct. 128

CourtNew York County Court, Suffolk County

DecidedJuly 30, 1672

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Rec. Co. Ct. 128 (Kent v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Court, Suffolk County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kent v. Smith, 1 Rec. Co. Ct. 128 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1672).

Pincite

Opinion

William Kentt pi* ags* Thomas Smith Defend* in an Ación of the case for Selling vnto the saide pi* a Serv* woman wch the saide Defend* brought out of England, cal’d by the name of Sarah Blacklock, who did acknowledge aboard the Vessell to the saide Defend* & others, that she was guilty of a capitall crime wch she had committed in old England wo11 is conceived to bee the murthering of a Childe, she had by a dutchman in England which is by her one confession in Court. And that the saide Defend* did conceale the same from the plaint, although hee formerly knew it, and is now by law taken of by Authority & committed to prison, for woh Serv* the plaint, gave the Defend* Eight pounds in mony, wo)l Serv* was never made over according to law by the Defend* but refused to doe the Same & due damages according to attachm* dated ye 21th of June, 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . founde for the pi* Eight pounds dammage in m° & costs of Court, wch was twenty six shillings & eight pence.

Execution issued ye 8*11 Aug0 72 for 91! 6s 8d m°

[ See below, pp. 149, 164-5, 185, 189, 237.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

William Kentt pi* ags* Thomas Smith Defend* in an Ación of the case for Selling vnto the saide pi* a Serv* woman wch the saide Defend* brought out of England, cal’d by the name of Sarah Blacklock, who did acknowledge aboard the Vessell to the saide Defend* & others, that she was guilty of a capitall crime wch she had committed in old England wo11 is conceived to bee the murthering of a Childe, she had by a dutchman in England which is by her one confession in Court. And that the saide Defend* did conceale the same from the plaint, although hee formerly knew it, and is now by law taken of by Authority & committed to prison, for woh Serv* the plaint, gave the Defend* Eight pounds in mony, wo)l Serv* was never made over according to law by the Defend* but refused to doe the Same & due damages according to attachm* dated ye 21th of June, 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . founde for the pi* Eight pounds dammage in m° & costs of Court, wch was twenty six shillings & eight pence.

Execution issued ye 8*11 Aug0 72 for 91! 6s 8d m°

[ See below, pp. 149, 164-5, 185, 189, 237.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Rec. Co. Ct. 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-smith-nysuffolkctyct-1672.