Jacquine de Saumarez petitions the Privy Council, 1715
9th October 2015
A printed account of the defendants' response to an appeal to the Privy Council, March 1715, concerning the retrait lignager of a house at the Tourgand. From Petitions and trials, in the Library. For Mr. James de Havilland, Mrs. Rachel Briard, Represented by Mr. Henry de Saumarez, her Son, Defendants. Versus. Mrs. Jacquina de Saumarez, Appellant.
[NB The Numeros in the Margin are the Figures set upon the Vouchers of the Cause, for the more easy finding them on Demand; and the most important Quotations are made Verbatim in the Original Languages, to prevent Disputes about Translations.]
Compendium of the Cause.
Sir Charles de Vic, Bart., having Sold a House and Land in the Island of Guernsey, it was Redeemed by the Husband of Mrs. Margueritte de Saumarez, Daughter of Mr. John de Saumarez, and of Mrs. Margueritte de Vic his second Wife, who was Neice of the said Sir Charles de Vic the Vendor, as the Laws of that Country do allow Redemptions to be made (jure consanguineo) for keeping the Inheritance within its proper Family, and the said Margueritte de Saumarez (who survived her Husband) having died possessed of that House and Land, it is now claimed by the Legal Representatives of two of her Sisters by her said Father's and Mother's side, but it is controverted by Mrs. Jacquina de Saumarez, who is her Sister only by the Father's side, being daughter of the said John de Saumarez, and of Mrs. Jacquina le Mesurier his first Wife, although she partakes nothing of the Blood of the said de Vics, whence derives the inheritable right to the said House and Land; and this being brought before the Royal Court there, it was pronounced in Favour of the Issue of the said Margueritte de Vic's side, but the said Jacquina de Saumarez brought it up by an Appeal, and it is now depending by His Majesty's most Gracious Reference, before the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of the Privy-Council, and is more at large explained both in Fact and Right as followeth.
The Matter of fact.
1. Sir Charles de Vic, Bart., Son of Henry de Vic, Knt. and Bart. conveyed in Fee simple for Rent unto Mr. Nicholas Careye de Blanchelande, a House and Lands called la Tourgans, in the Parish of St. Peter's Port in Guernsey. [December 5 1674. Nu. 1]
2. The said Charles de Vic, Sold to the said Nicholas Careye, the abovesaid Eight Quarters of Yearly Wheat Rent, for Twelve Hundred Livres Tournois ready Money. [December 5 1674. Nu. 2.]
3. Mr. Elisha de Saumarez, Jun., in Right of Mrs. Margueritte de Saumarez, his Wife, was by a Decree of the Pleas of Inheritance judicially vested with the Redemption (jure consanguineo) of what Hereditary Bargains the said Nicholas Careye had made with the said Sir Charles De Vic, on condition to repay the Twelve Hundred Livres Tournois. [March 2 1674. Num. 3.]
4. Both the said Elisha de Saumarez and Margueritte his Wife petitioned to the Court of Guernsey, touching the Redemption which he had made of the said House and Lands called la Tourgans, setting forth a conditional Agreement made between them the said Husband and Wife in these Words; A Condition neanmoins & par mutuel Accord entre lesdits Mariez que le susdit Mary en joüiroit sa vie durante en cas quil survivroit sadite femme. Or il est Messrs. que ledits Mariez par Oubliance nayant point supplié vos Seigneuries que leur susdit accord fust exprimé dans ledit Acte de Retraicte; & eux desirans que leur susdite condition & accord soit redige en forme Authentique. Ce que ne pouvans faire sans le Conge de cette Cour, lesdits Mariez vous supplient le leur Octroyer, &c. [June 7 1678. Num. 12.]
5. The said Court consisting then of the Lieutenant Bailiff and 7 Jurats, admitted of the said Petition, and allowed the full purpose thereof, having first taken the Woman's Oath that she had not been constrained thereunto. [April 29 1676. N. 13.]
6. The said Margueritte de Saumarez having survived the said Elisha de Saumarez her Husband, she continued in possession of the said Tourgans 'till her Decease, and after her Death (she having no Issue) her Estates diffused by Succession into the Several Lines which they belonged unto; and as for her personal Estate, she had made a Will, and appointed Mrs. Ann Charlotte de Saumarez to be her Executrix.
7. The Appellant Jacquina de Saumarez taking upon her the Title of Heiress to the purchased Estates of the said Deceased Margueritte de Saumarez, brought an Action there against the said Ann Charlotte de Saumarez the Executrix, for the Keys of the said House and Garden of la Tourgan, whereupon the Cause was referred to a Court of Judgments. And at the same time the Defendants James de Havilland in Right of Mrs. Ann de Saumarez his Mother, Sister of the said Margueritte deceased, and the said Mrs. Rachel Briard, Sister by the Mother's side of the said Margueritte, intervened into the Cause, and Protested. [December 10 1715. Num. 4.]
8. The said James de Havilland, and Mrs. Rachel Briard, brought an Action against the said Ann Charlotte de Saumarez the Executrix, for the Keys of the said Tourgan, but it was suspended until Determination of the Action, which was then depending between the said Jacquina de Saumarez, and them concerning that Estate. [January 11 1715. Num. 5.]
9. It came on again between all the said Parties, the said Executrix was ejected, and the said Keys were Interlocutorily decreed to be deposited into their Clerk's Office, until final Determination of the Controversy in that behalf, depending between the said Jacquina de Saumarez, James de Havilland, and Rachel Briard. [February 7 1715. Num. 6.]
10. The said Controversy was brought on, and appointed to be determined by a Court of Judgments. [February 25 1715. N. 7.]
11. It was brought on before a Court of Judgments, and was pronounced in Favour of the said James de Havilland and Rachel Briard. [March 13 1715. Nu. 8.]
12. As the said Action, such as it is described in this last and the former Acts of the Cause, tends in a great measure to the Explanation of the Cause, by describing the Characters of the Psrties; we conceive it may not be amiss to quote it in its own Words, viz., As the the Character of the Appellant Jacquina de Saumarez, Dme Jacquine de Saumarez heritiere aux Acquets & Conquets de feue Margueritte de Saumarez sa soeur. And then the Character of the Defendants, l'Action de Mr. James de Havilland a cause de Dme Anne de Saumarez sa mere vivante soeur de Dme Margueritte de Saumarez deffunte & du Sr Jean Girard procureur de Monsi. Henry de Saumarez authorize de Justice pour agir pour Dame Rachel Briard sa mere durant son Indisposition, ladite Briard & ledit Sr de Havilland audit nom heritiers de ladite deffunte du coste maternel. And then the Substance of the Action, Avoir la Cour mettre au neant l'opposition quils font que ladite Dme Jacquine de Saumarez ne soit mise en possesion des Clefs de la Maison & Jardin de la Tourgans, qui appartenoit a ladite deffunte. Finally, the aforesaid Decree of the Court of Judgments, Est l'opposition quils ont faite que ladite Jacquina de Saumarez ne soit mist en possession des Clefs de la Maison & Jardin de la Tourgans qui appartenoit a ladite deffunte trouvee bonne. La Cour ayant Juge par Jugement que la retraicte faitte par Monsi. Elizee de Saumarez au nom de ladite Margueritte de Saumarez lors sa femme, de ladite Maison & Terres tient nature de propre, aprez avoir ouy les parties & leurs Advocats en tout ce quils ont voulu dire & alleguer pou le merite de la Cause. [Num. 8, 5, 7, 8.]
13. From this Sentence the said Jacquina de Saumarez Appealed to His Majesty in Council. [March 24 1715. Num. 9.]
14. All these Facts may be proved by Authentick Vouchers, and are also essentially confessed by the said Jacquina's own Petition of Appeal. [October 29 1716. Num 27.]
15. The said Appeal was entered at the Council Office, and the Summons served upon the Defendants, requiring their appearance in the Summer Terms in 1717. [January 18 1716. N. 14.]
16. The Appellant's Petition to His Majesty in Council, was Referred to the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee, to whose Consideration it is humbly offered under these Five general Heads, viz., 1. The thing in Question. 2. The several Parties, and their respective Claims to the same. 3. The Laws upon such Cases. 4. The Proceedings and Doings of the Court below thereupon. 5. The pretended Errors suggested against it by the said Jacquina's Petition of Appeal, with the respective Refutations of them. [July 15 1717. Num. 27.]
1. The Thing in Question.
1. It is a piece of Land, with a House on it, which by the above-stated Facts appears to have been in the Property of Sir Charles de Vic, Knt. and Bart. who having Sold it away, it was judicially Redeemed there by the Husband of the said Margueritte de Saumarez in her Name, and to her Use, as being originally in the line of the said de Vics, whereof she was descended.
2. This was so well acknowledged by her said Husband and herself, that she could not so much as give him the Faculty of enjoying it after her Decease, neither did he think he had any Right to it, until the Royal Court had given their Sanction in that behalf upon his and her humble Petition to them. [Num. 12, 13.]
3. In these Islands, they are so very tender of preserving the Inheritance in its proper Line, that a Man cannot divert it either by his last Will, nor otherways, as by the Article 432 of the Custom of Normandy, in these Words; Sy le Donateur na qu'un heritier seul, il luy peut donner tout son Heritage & biens Immeubles, & Art. 433, & Sy'l y a plusieurs heritiers, il leur peut donner a tous ensemble mais ne peut avantager l'un plus que l'autre, comme a este dit cy dessus. And the Custom going on further says, that the Heirs may revoke Donations made to their Prejudice, and as for Allienations of Estates by Sales, they are Redeemable by the next Kin as shall be more at large let forth under its proper Head, so that the real Estates are totally confined within the Family, which in Respect to that now in Question, puts us upon inquiring into the Character and Right of the several Persons, who lay a Claim thereunto.
2. The several Parties, and their respective Claims to the same.
1. As to the said Margueritte de Saumarez, the Deceased of la Tourgans. She was the Daughter of Mr. John de Saumarez, and of Margueritte de Vic his Wife, who was daughter of John de Vic, son of [amended, Richard, Sister of] Henry. This Henry de Vic, was afterwards Sir Henry de Vic, Knt. and Bart. and Sir Charles de Vic his Son was the Vendor of the Estate in Question, and [amended, first Cozen] to the said Margueritte de Saumarez of la Tourgan.
2. And as to the Parties in the present Cause, their several Degrees of Consanguinity are thus: The said John de Saumarez, Married twice, his first Wife was Jacquina le Mesurier, from whom the Appellant Jacquina de Saumarez is descended; his second Wife was the said Margueritte de Vic, by whom he had two Daughters, viz. 1. The said Margueritte de Saumarez of la Tourgan's, whose Estate is now in Question. 2. Ann de Saumarez, who Married with Mr. John de Havilland, and is Mother of the said James. [Nos. 16-18, 20, 23-24.]
3. The said Margueritte de Vic, when she Married with Mr. John de Saumarez, was Widow of Mr. Briard, and by whom she had had Mrs Rachel Briard, who married with the Reverend Dr. John de Saumarez, so that the said Margueritte de Saumarez the Deceased of la Tourgan, is Aunt to the said James de Havilland, being his Mother's own Sister, and also Sister to the said Rachel Briard by the Mother's side, but is in no ways related by Blood to the said Jacquina de Saumarez (the Appellant) who came by another Wife, viz. by Jacquina le Mesurier. [Num. 25.]
4. All these do claim the inheritance of the said Margueritte de Saumarez of la Tourgan, and they do severally assume Titles or Colours of Parentage for it, the Defendants are stiled Heiresses to the Deceased Margueritte de Saumarez by her Mother's side, and are really so, viz. by the Line of the De Vics, from whom the property of that Land does derive. This Quality made part of their Action in the Court below, and was not at all demurred upon mor controverted, nor even since by the Appellant's Petition of Appeal; but as for the Appellant, as she has not the same Advantage of Blood, she fetches it afar off, and assumes the Title of Heiress to the Acquests and Conquests of the said Margueritte de Saumarez, her Sister, only by the Father's side.
5. This puts us to the Necessity of distinguishing two sort of Estates hinted at in this Action, the one which is called Propre, viz. a proper Inheritance descended from one Relation to another, and the other is Acquests and Conquests: This word Acquests signifies a Purchase, and both do seem very properly described by Godfrey in his Commentary upon the Custom of Normandy, Tom. I Tit. De Successions collateralles en Meubles, Acquets, & Conquests, pag. 542, speaks thus; Quoy quil y en ait qui mettent difference entre les Acquests & Conquests, disant que les premiers procedent de tiltre lucratif, comme de Donation, & les autres de tiltre Onereux comme d'Achapt, & que les premiers s'entendent de ceux faits par les Non-Mariez, & les autres par les Mariez, notre Coutumme use indifferament de tous les deux & comprend sous le Nom de Conquets, tout ce qui est accreu par l'industrie de deffunct outre l'ancien patrimoine. Et partant sy le deffunt a vendu son ancien patrimoine, les heritage acquis prennent sa place, & succedent au lieu d'iceluy jusques a la Concurrence du prix des choses vendües, par ce que rien nest repute conquest que le propre ne soit remplace par l'Articl. 408, de ladite Coustume. The Appellant claims this Estate of la Tourgan, under the Notion of an Acquest and Conquest, as if it had been newly Purchased by the said Sister. And the Defendants do say, that being passed into her Hands by the Right of Consanguinity, which she bore to the Family of De Vics, (whence it derives,) it keeps still within that Line, which brings us to our third general inquiry, what the Law is in those Cases. [Num. 27.]
3. The Laws in such Cases.
1. The Custom of Normandy commented by Terrien, lib. 8. cap. 26. p. 316 speaks thus: Les heritages qui sont vendus ou par ceux a qui ils appartient, ou par Justice passez par decret pour leur Dettes, pouvent estre Retraits par Clameur de Marche de Bourse. Et est ratreable tout heritage vendu par deniers ou baille a fieffe par rente racquittable. And in the same Book and Chapter, pag. 318, it says, Chacun du ligneage au vendeur a qui la Terre qui a este vendue pouvait venir par heritage, la peut retraire par le prix mais il appartient au plus prochain. Et le plus prochain se taist sans que le marche soit rappelle par autre en Cour, il ne desira pas estre ouy. And in the next Article it runs thus: Aucun de ligneage au vendeur par son Pere ne peut retraire le fief qui vient de la part de la Mere, ny aussy au contraire. Mais sy tous ceux du ligneage se taisoient le Seigneur du fief le poura rappeller & non pas ceux de l'autre Ligne. And in the page 319 it says, Se la vendue est faitte a un qui soit du ligneage, un plus prochain d'iceluy Ligneage que l'Achetteur sera receu a le retirer par la Clameur. And the said Custom of Normandy, Art. 475, says, En concurrence de Clamans lignagers, le plus prochain Parent du Vendeur, & plus habille a luy succeder est prefere. And Art, 476. Et ou les Clameurs seroyent en semblable degre, ils sont receus a la Clameur selon l'Ordre que les Successions sont defferree par la Coutume. And the Law goes so far for the preserving of Inheritance within its proper Line, that the said Terrien in the above quoted Book and Chap., pag. 319, gives an Instance of a Daughter admitted by Judgment to redeem an Estate, which had been sold before she was Born or Conceived. The said Terrien, lib. 6 cap. 2 pag. 198, mentions a Decree in a Controversy, where it was pretended, that an Estate redeemed by a Lord of a Manor, should indivisibly follow the Seigneury; and therupon it was decreed, that having been Redeemed, it should remain to the Lineal Heir, and the Art. 483 of the said Custom of Normandy speaks thus; L'heritage retire par Clameur de bourse a droit de ligneage tient nature de propre & non d'Acquest. And Godfrey in his Commentary upon the Custom of Normandy, Fol. 542, says, that an Inheritance redeemed by the Husband in the Wife's Name, is appropriated to her to remain in her Side and Line. And as to their manner of succeeding in Normandy, it is regulated by the Custom recited by the said Terrien, lib. 6 cap. 2 pag. 201 L'heritage doit descendre a celuy qui est le plus prochain en lignage aprez la Mort de celuy qui le tint pourtant quil soit du lignage dedans le septieme degre du celuy dont l'heritage descend, car le lignage s'estand jusquau 7me Degre. Le 7me Degre est du tout hors du lignage. From all this is clearly appears, that the said Land of la Tourgans was originally a proper Inheritance, and no Acquests nor Conquests, in the Family of the De Vics, and as such was Redeemed by the said Elisha de Saumarez, for the Use and Benefit of the said Margueritte de Saumarez his Wife, descended from the said Family of the De Vics, he having in his own Name no Right nor Title to it.
2. It likewise appears by the above-quoted Authorities, that what has been thus redeemed, is appropriated to the Person in whose Right it is Redeemed, and as such ought to be succeeded unto by the Heirs at Law, either Lineal or Collateral; and what comes next is to know, what has been done thereupon in the Court below.
4. The Proceedings and Doings of the Court below thereupon.
1. Mrs De Bonnevall, Executrix of the last Will and Testament of the said Margueritte de Saumarez, having taken the Keys of the said House and Land la Tourgan's, the Appellant Jacquina de Saumarez filed an Action against her in the Court of Guernsey, and thereupon the now Defendants Mr. James de Havilland, and Mr. Henry de Saumarez for his Mother, Mrs. Rachel Briard intervened for their own Interest. And as the Laws of the Island do in no ways admit of Testamentary Dispositions of Real Estates to divert them out of their legal Channel, they might have ejected the Executrix without any further a do; but for the sake of Justice and Equity, they transferred the matter to a Court of Judgments, which is their grand Assizes to be held by no less than a Quorum of seven Jurats, (if so many in the Island,) and where they handle but one or two Causes a Day, in order to a more mature and leisurely Discussion. [Num. 4.]
2. The present Defendants took up the Cudgels, and brought on the Action against the Executrix for hte said Keys, but hte Court adjourned it again, until the Controversy between the said Jacquina de Saumarez and the Executrix should have been finally heard before a Court of Judgments, which was done soon after, and the Executrix being ejected, and the Keys taken away from her, the Court did not hastily or rashly lodge them into the hands of either of the Parties, though they were very responsible Persons of both sides, but decreed tham to be deposited within Twenty-four Hours au Greffe, i.e. in their Clerk's Office, until final Judgment should be given upon the other Cause. [Num. 5, Num. 6.]
3. The said other Cause between the present Parties being again brought on, they transferred it to a Court of Judgments, with liberty to the Parties to bring their Proofs and Coheirs (if any) in order to a full, fair, and free Debate among all Persons concerned. [Num. 7.]
4. Finally, it was brought on before such a Court of Judgments, consisting of the Judge Delegate and seven Jurats, before whom all the above recited Facts and Authorities were represented, whether in very Words, or in Substance, and the Party of the other side was fully heard against it, their Advocates having Exhausted thereupon all their Oratory, then indeed the Court pronounced (as they could do no tother ways) in favour of the now Defendants; from which the said Jacquina de Saumarez offered to Appeal, if she could but make out that it was within the Precinct of an Appeal, and gave her a Fortnight to think upon it, but Eleven Days after she appears before them, and ex parte, sets forth her Arguments for an Appeal, which the said Court admitted, though in strictness, perhaps, not admissible, and no Objections nor Cavils were brought against it; so that the said Court has acted in this with all imaginable Justice and Equity, nay, with a good measure of Favour to the said Jacquina de Saumarez the Appellant, and is seems very strange that she should have any thing to say against such a reasonable Decree, and that is our fifth and last general Consideration.
5. The pretended Errors suggested against it by the said Jacquina's Petition of APpeal, with the respective Refutations of them.
1. In the first Paragraph of the Petition, presented in behalf of the Appellant, (but which in Fact is signed by no Body,) are these Words; That the said House, Gardens, and Apputenances, were absolutley Sold away to, and vested in the said Nicholas Careye. [Num. 27.]
Respond.
1. This Mistake may easily be executed in England, where no redemptions of Estates are allowed, and the Purchaser becomes uncontroulable Propriatary as soon as the Deed of Sale has been Executed, but it would be an Absurdity to say so in Normandy, or in those Islands, where the Kindred are Intitled to a Right of Redemption, as soon as the Estate is Sold, as by the above-quoted Authorities may fully appear; so that the Purchaser becomes only an Intermediate Person, to keep the Estate within the Vendor's Line, and until the Year and a Day be expired, he is reputed by the Law to be only a Purchaser in Trust for the Use and Benenfit of the Kindred, and if within a Year and a Day none of them Claims, then by their general Silence, he becomes a Purchaser Absolute; and the Estate sold, becomes then (and not before) vested in him according to the said Petition.
2. In the second Paragraph of the Appellant's Petition are these Words; That on the 2d of March 1674, one Elisha de Saumarez, by Vertue of a Judgment of the Court of Pleas of Inheritance, did for the Sum of 1200 Livres, buy the said House and Gardens of the Widow of the said Deceased, Mr. Careye, who was also Guardian to his Children, in the Name, and for the Benefit of his Wife Margueritte de Saumarez.
3. And in the fifth Paragraph she explains herself a little better in these Words; Whereas your Petitioner humbly insists, that the said Elisha's Purchase is, and by Law, and many good Reasons ready to be Offered, ought to be taken as a new Purchase or Acquest made by the said Elisha de Saumarez with his own Money, for the Benefit of his then Wife Margueritte, and ought to descend [as] a new Purchase of the said Margueritte to your Petitoner only, without admitting any other Person to share in the same.
Respond.
1. The former Mistake is a colourable Ground for this, for if the Vendor had Immutably and Absolutely transferred the Property of the Estate to the Purchaser, the taking that Property out of the said Purchaser's Hands, and vesting it upon a new Proprietor, might have had the outward Show of a new Purchase; but that first Position being dissolved by what has been said, the erroneous Inferences drawn from thence do vanish away of Course.
2. And as to what the Appellant supposes, that a Purchase and a Retreat are the very same thing, it is so absurd and ridiculous, that if a Practitioner should say so in Normandy, or in those Islands, where the difference between both is perfectly understood, he would expose himself as much, as if a Husbandman should say, that the Root of a Tree and its Branches are the very same thing.
3. A Purchase is a free Bargain agreed and concluded from both Sides for a certain Sum of Money covenanted between them, without Impulsion or Coersion of any Superiour Authority, and until the Deed be Executed, or at least formly Covenanted, there is no Right for either side to the Conditions thereof. But a Retreat, as it differs in all Languages from a Purchase, the one being called in Latin Acquisitio, in French un Acquest ou Conquest, and in English a Purchase; and the other is called in Latin Retractus Consanguineus, in French Retraict Lignager, and in English Redemption or Pre-emption, so does it differ from a Purchase, both in Nature and Circumstances. For there is an Anteriour Right by Blood in the Hands of the Redeemour, which Intitles him to an Action against the Purchaser for the Property of that Estate, and it is not in the Purchaser's Power to resist it. There is no voluntary Convention between them, and it is not in their Power to alter the Conditions of the Deed, or to Diminish or Increase the Consideration Money; but the Purchaser must yield up the Property, whether he will or no, and if it be claimed by several Kindred together, the nearest has the Preference in spight of the Purchaser and Concurrent Claimers, as by Art. 475 of the Custom of Normandy, in these Words; En concurrence de Clamans lignagers, le plus prochain parent du vendeur & plus habille a luy succeder est prefere. And then that Matter, as it is begun, so it is concluded judicially, and every Step thereof becomes a publick Act and a publick Record; whereas a Purchase, especially such as that now in question, is totally made up of private COnventions, and executed without any Ministry of Justice.
4. And as to what the Appellant says, she must have succeeded to that under the Notion of an Acquest or Purchase, the above-quoted Art. 483, and other above-mentioned Constitutions, do sufficiently demonstrate, that what is thus redeemed is a proper Inheritance, and no Acquest, and belongs to the Person who Redeemed it, by Virtue of an Anterior Inheritable Right Apparent she had thereunto before it was sold, the Appellant seems to understand it pretty well, though designedly turns it wrong, for in that said fifth Paragraph of the Petition she says, That the said Sentence (meaning that now in Appeal) decreeing that such Purchase or Redemption holds Nature of Inheritance, in its consequence alters the Succession to the said House and Gardens, it signifying, as if the same had been a Patrimony descended from the Family of the said Margueritte de Saumarez, anciently and before the said Elisha's Purchase.
5. As to what she says, the said Elisha de Saumarez got the said estate with his own Money, it is as much unaccountable as if he had Built a great House, or made considerable Improvements upon his Wife's Lands, whose Property could never have been altered thereby, or as if she had brought him ten Thousand Pounds in Money when she Married with him, and he had converted them to his own particular Advantage; those contingent Cases in a Matrimonial State, must be taken as they are, for Better or Worse, Richer or Poorer.
6. In the last Paragraph of her said Petition she speaks thus; For as much as your Petitioner being an ancient Woman, hath sent over her two Daughters to London, at great Charge, on purpose to attend the said Appeal, &c.
Respond.
1. The Defendants are pleased to intrust their Business into the Hands of their Sollicitor in London, and if the Appellant being an Ancient (and probably a very wise Gentlewoman) has not thought fit to do the like, she has doubtless some good Reasons for it, and as the two young Ladies came over in April or May (the mildest Season of the Year) it is humbly apprehended they have got no Inconveniency by it, and that such a Voyage to the Capital City of the British Dominions, where the best of Husbands may be had, may in time make amends for their troubles. It is true (and that the Defendants are sorry for) they seem resolved to prolong their Abode here 'till the most untoward part of the Year, which may make them obnoxious to the stomachichal Distempers too common in this great City in Winter, for in their Petition they pray his Majesty to appoint a short Day for hearing rhe said Appeal, which may best meet about Christmas, when indeed the Days are the shortest.
The Premisses therefore considered, the Defendants humbly pray, That the said just Sentence of the Court of Judgment of the 13th of March 1715, may be affirmed, and the said Appeal dismissed, and the Appellant adjudged to proportionable Costs and Damages for their Charges and Troubles occasioned thereby.
In the Livre de Perchage of Le Roi St Pierre Port of 1706, [Fol. 178], the house was described as belonging to Dame Margueritte de Saumarez, and as having formerly been the property of Messire Henry de Vic. The sizeable plot of 20 vergees included land that had belonged to Jacques Petiot. By 1732 [Fol. 291], the house 'that belonged to Margueritte de Saumarez' had been bought by Sieur Pierre de Carteret, and no indication is given of what may have happened to the property in between.