[Transcript, p. 1]

New York Supreme Court Pleas before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of New York of the term of May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and three. Witness Morgan Lewis Esquire Chief Justice.

Fairlie and Bloodgood*

State of New York to wit[:] The People of the State of New York sent to John N. Fordham Esquire[,] one of the Justices of the said People[,] the peace of the said People in and for the County of Suffolk to keep and also divers felonies[,] trespasses[,] and other misdemeanors committed in the said County to hear and determine assigned their writ [?close?] in these words to wit[:] The People of the State of New York by the grace of God free and independent to John N. Fordham Esquire[,] one of our Justices assigned to keep our peace in and for our County of Suffolk and also to hear and determine divers felonies[,] trespasses[,] and other misdemeanors done and committed in the said County of Suffolk[.] Greeting[.] We being willing for certain causes to be certified of a certain plaint lately levied or affirmed in our Court before you without our writ against Jesse Peirson at the suit of Lodowick Post in a plea of trespass on the case as it is said and also of the process[,] order[,] proceedings[,] and judgment in the same Do Command you that the plaint aforesaid and also all the process[,] order[,] proceedings[,] and judgment aforesaid with all things whatever concerning the same as fully and entirely as the same remain before you by whatever name or names the parties in the same are or may be called before our Justices of our Supreme Court of Judicature at the City hall of the City of New York on the third Tuesday of April next distinctly and openly you certify and send together with this writ that our

said

* Clerks of the New York Supreme Court, James Fairlie, New York Office (1797–1830) and Francis Bloodgood, Albany Office (1797–1825). See James D. Folts, "Duely and Constantly Kept:" History of the Supreme Court of Judicature, 1691–1847, and an Inventory of its Records (Albany, Utica, and Geneva Offices), 1797–1847 (Albany: New York State Court of Appeals & the New York State Archives and Records Administration, 1991), Appendix E, "Supreme Court Clerks (1797–1847)," available at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/pdf/Library/Research/Duely_and_Constantly_Kept.pdf.

     [Transcript, p. 2]

said Justices of our said Supreme Court of Judicature may thereupon cause to be done what of right and according to the laws and customs of our said State ought to be done. Witness Morgan Lewis Esquire[,] Chief Justice at the City hall of the City of Albany[,] the twenty ninth day of January in the twenty seventh year of our Independence and in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and three.

Fairlie and Bloodgood

Sanford Att[orne]y.

          And afterwards to wit on the first Monday in May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and three before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of New York comes the said Jesse Peirson by Nathan Sanford* his Attorney and the said John N. Fordham the said Justice in the said writ named now here returns the said writ and sends the record in the said writ mentioned in these words to wit.

Suffolk County} Ls.**

I[,] John N. Fordham Esquire[,] one of the Justices of the peace of the People of the State of New York the Peace of the said People in and for the County of Suffolk to keep and also divers felonies[,] trespasses[,] and other misdemeanors in the said County [?perpetrated?] to hear and determine assigned in the said writ of the People to me directed[,] named[.] To the People of the State of New York[,] [I] do certify that before the coming to me of the said writ to wit on the thirtieth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and two[,] at the town of Southampton[,] in the County of Suffolk[,] Lodowick Post in the said writ named came into the Court of the said People before me[,] the said John N.

Fordham

* Nathan Sanford (1777–1838), lawyer, whose descendants came to eastern Long Island by way of Hartford, Connecticut. The family name is usually spelled with a "d," "Sandford." See 1800 Suffolk County Census, available at http://www.rootsweb.com/~nysuffol/1800csh.html.

** The letters stand for locus sigilli, used to designate the location of the seal in the original document. Since proceedings before a Justice of the Peace were not a court of record with its own seal and clerk, this would have been Fordham's own seal. See "Duely and Constantly Kept," Appendix C, "Inferior Courts of Law." See also Transcript, p. 8 and the best example on p. 9.

     [Transcript, p. 3]

Fordham then being one of the Justices of the Peace for the said County of Suffolk and then and there affirmed his plaint against Jesse Peirson in the said writ also named in a plea of trespass on the case to his damage twenty five dollars and prayed of me process against the said Jesse Peirson by summons whereupon at the prayer of the said Lodowick Post and in pursuance of an Act of the Legislature of the State of New York entitled an Act for the more speedy recovery of debts to the value of twenty five dollars passed the seventh day of April one thousand eight hundred and one. I[,] the said John N. Fordham[,] did issue a summons directed to any of the Constables of the County of Suffolk where the said Jesse Peirson then resided thereby requiring the said Constable to summons the said Jesse Peirson to appear before me at the dwelling house of Hugh Gelston found in the town of Southampton in the County of Suffolk aforesaid on Thursday the thirtieth of December in the year last aforesaid at two oclock in the afternoon of the same day to answer unto Lodowick Post in a plea of trespass on the case to his damage twenty five dollars[,] which Summons was delivered unto Thomas Harris one of the Constables of Southampton in the County aforesaid who afterwards to wit on the thirtieth day of December aforesaid returned [?thereto?] that the same was duly and personally served on the said Jesse Peirson by reading the same in his hearing on which said thirtieth day of December the said Lodowick Post and the said

Jesse

     [Transcript, p. 4]

Jesse Peirson appeared in their proper person in the Court of the said People before me [,] the said John N. Fordham and thereupon the said Lodowick Post complained against the said Jesse Peirson as follows for that whereas he[,] the said Lodowick Post[,] on the tenth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and two at the town of Southampton in the County of Suffolk aforesaid was the possessor of certain dogs and hounds and the said dogs and hounds so being then and there in the possession and under the command of him[,] the said Lodowick[,] did then and there upon a certain wild and uninhabited[,] unpossessed[,] and waste land called the Beach find and start one of those wild and noxious beasts called a Fox and the said Fox being so found as aforesaid by the said dogs and hounds was then and there upon the said wild and unpossessed and uninhabited and waste land called the Beach pursued[,] hunted[,] and chased by the said hounds and dogs and followed and pursued by the said Lodowick then and there having the said dogs and hounds under his command and direction as aforesaid. The said Jesse while the said Fox was then and there hunted[,] chased[,] and pursued as aforesaid the said Jesse well knowing that the said Fox was so hunted[,] chase[,] and pursued as aforesaid with intention to injure him[,] the said Lodowick[,] and to prevent the said hounds and dogs from catching and taking the said Fox and with intention to hinder the said Lodowick from having the

said

     [Transcript, p. 5]

said Fox did on the same day and year last aforesaid at and upon the said wild and uninhabited[,] unpossessed[,] and waste land called the beach to wit at the town and County aforesaid maliciously kill the said Fox[.] [T]he said Lodowick and the said dogs and hounds aforesaid then and there being in the view of the said Jesse and actually engaged in the chase[,] pursuit[,] and hunting of the said Fox as aforesaid[.] And the said Jesse did then and there maliciously take and carry away the said Fox whereby the said Lodowick saith that he is injured and hath sustained damage to twenty five dollars and therefore he brings suit [?] [T]o which the said Jesse Peirson then and there pleaded not guilty and issue being so thereupon joined between the said parties[.] [T]he said Lodowick Post in pursuance of said Act did demand of me[,] the said John N. Fordham[,] that the said action should be tried by a jury and upon such demand I[,] the said John N. Fordham[,] holding the said Court for the trial of said cause upon the thirtieth of December aforesaid at the town and County aforesaid did issue a Venire directed to Thomas Harris[,] Constable for the town of Southampton commanding him to summon twelve good and lawful men being freeholders of the town of Southampton in the County aforesaid who should in no wise be of kin either to the said Lodowick Post Plaintiff or to the said Jesse Peirson Defendant nor interested in the

said

     [Transcript, p. 6]

said cause to be and appear in the said Court of the said People before me[,] the said John N. Fordham[,] immediately at the said house of the said Hugh Gelston [?Junr?] situate in the town of Southampton in the County of Suffolk aforesaid to make a jury for the trial of the same action between the parties aforesaid which said Venire is hereunto annexed and was then and there delivered to the said Thomas Harris[,] one of the Constables of the town of Southampton to be executed according to law and the said Thomas Harris then and there being such Constable as aforesaid did then and there make due return of the said Venire and annexed a pannel thereto containing the names of twelve freeholders whom he had duly summoned by virtue of the said Venire and the names of the persons so impannelled were severally written on several and distinct pieces of paper as nearly of one size as could be and were delivered to me[,] the said John N. Fordham[,] (by the said Constable who returned the said panel) rolled up by him all as nearly as could be in one and the same manner and put together into a box and thereupon the said John N. Fordham did draw out six of the said papers one after another on which the following persons were named and who being respectively called did appear and were not challenged and being approved of by me[,] the said Justice[,] as indifferent were the jury to try the said cause and were severally sworn well and truly to try the matter in [in]difference between Lodowick Post Plaintiff and Jesse

Peirson

     [Transcript, p. 7]

Peirson Defendant and a true verdict to give according to evidence viz. Charles Douglass[,] Stephen Satterly, James Sayr, Silas Havens, Laccheus Payne, and John F. Havens[.] [A]nd after the jury had been so sworn they did sit together and hear the several proofs and allegations of the said parties which were delivered in public in their presence[.] [A]nd to each of the witnesses on the said trial I[,] the said Justice[,] did administer the oath directed and prescribed in and by the twelfth section of the act aforesaid[.] [A]nd the said jury had then and there heard in the said Court the proofs and allegations. I[,] the said Justice[,] did administer to the said Thomas Harris then and there being Constable as aforesaid the oath for that purpose directed and prescribed by the section last aforesaid of the act aforesaid viz. You do swear in the presence of Almighty God that you will to the utmost of your ability keep every person sworn on this inquest together in some private and convenient place without meat or drink except water[.] [Y]ou will not suffer any person to speak to them nor speak to them yourself unless by order of the Justice [or] unless it be to ask them whether they have agreed on their verdict ↑ until they have agreed on their verdict ↓ * [A]nd the said jurors were then and there kept together and apart by themselves in a private and convenient place attended by the said Thomas Harris[,] the said Constable[,] until they had agreed upon their Verdict[.] [A]nd when the said jury had agreed upon their Verdict they returned into the said Court and delivered their

said

* This addition was written in a different hand. It appears to be the same as that appearing at the end of the document in the sideways text on Transcript, p. 19.

     [Transcript, p. 8]

said verdict to me[,] the said Justice[.] [W]hereby they found for the Plaintiff seventy five cents for his damages besides his costs and thereupon I[,] the said John N. Fordham[,] did adjudge[,] consider[,] and determine that the said Lodowick Post should recover against the said Jesse Peirson his damages aforesaid in [?form?] aforesaid found and also five dollars for his costs and charges by him about his suit in this behalf expended which said damages[,] costs[,] and charges in the whole amount to five dollars and seventy five cents and that the said Lodowick Post thereof [shall] have execution.

	Given under my hand and seal at Southampton in the said County of Suffolk the twenty sixth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and three.
	John N. Fordham
	Justice
	[Swirl]

Suffolk County} Ls.*

To either of the Constables of the town of Southampton[:] You are hereby required in the name of the People of the State of New York seasonably to summons Jesse Peirson to be and appear before me at the house of Hugh Gelston [?Junr?] on Thursday the 30^th of December instant at two oclock in the afternoon to answer unto Lodowick Post in an action of trespass on the case for killing and taking away a Fox

Lodowick

* Location of Seal. See **note Transcript, p. 2.

     [Transcript, p. 9]

Lodowick Post twenty five dollars as it is said Hereof fail not[.] Given under my hand this 22^nd day of December 1802.

John N. Fordham Justice (Swirl)

(Indorsed) Legally [?served?] by reading within hearing of the [?within?] named [?Jesey?] [?Parson?] and duely returned[.] Fees 69 cents. Atest [?for?] me.

Thomas L. Harris Counstable

Suffolk County}Ls.*

L.S.**

To Thomas Harris[,] Constable[:] You are hereby required in the name of the People of the State of New York immediately to summons twelve good and lawful freeholders of the town of Southampton in the County aforesaid who shall be in no wise of kin either to Lodowick Post Plaintiff and Jesse Peirson Defendant and not interested in a certain cause to be and appear before me[,] John N. Fordham[,] at the dwelling house of Hugh Gelston [?Junr?] in the town aforesaid and return their names together with this [?precept?] without delay[.] Hereof fail not[.] [G]iven under my hand and seal in Southampton this 30^th of December[,] 1802.

John N. Fordham Justice [Swirl]

(Indorsed) In compliance of the [?within precept?] I have summons the [?persons?] whose names are annexed. Fees 37 ½ Cents. Atest [?per?] me.

Thomas L. Harris Counstable [Swirl]

* Location of Seal. See **note Transcript, p. 2.

** Ibid. This is the best example of use of "L.S." to designate where a seal was used in the original document. Here the "L.S." is inside a diamond shape. See Original.

     [Transcript, p. 10]

(Jurors Summoned) Stephen Satterley[,] John F. Havens[,] William R. Halsey[,] John Norris[,] Thomas Beebe[,] Silas Havens[,] Theophilus Cook[,] Charles Douglass[,] Isaac Jessup[,] James Sayre[,] Abraham Tapping[,] Lacheus Payne (Jurors illegible scratch out) Ch[o]s[en][:] Douglass[,] Steph[en] Satterley[,] James Sayr[,] Silas Havens[,] Lacheus Pain[,] J[oh]n F. Havens.

John N. Fordham

	Lodowick Post against Jesse Peirson} Court Fees
	Summons	9½
	Constable serving	69
	5 [?Subpoenas?] and serving	96
	7 Witness attending	87½
	Venire	19
	Constable taking jury	37½
	Swearing jury	12½
	Swearing of Evidence	42
	Swearing Constable	6
	Jury Feas	75
	Jury attending & not sworn	37½
	Judgment	12½
		$5 ..4*

I [?tax?] of the above bill Five dollars which is the Plaintiff[']s Cost

John N. Fordham Justice [Swirl] [?Signature?] scratch out

And the said Jesse Peirson having had hearing of the said return and of the process and proceedings

mentioned

[?5?]

* Assuming ½ is 0.5¢, the total here would be $5.04, which Fordham probably rounded down to $5.

     [Transcript, p. 11]

mentioned therein immediately says that in the said plaint[,] process[,] proceedings[,] and record and also in the rendering and giving of the said judgment there is manifest error in this that is to say[:]

That it appears in and by the said record here sent that the summons issued by the said John N. Fordham Esquire[,] the said Justice in the said action before him[,] was directed "to any of the Constables of the County of Suffolk where the said Jesse Peirson then resided[.]" [W]hereas by law every summons in actions before Justices of the peace ought to be directed to some Constable or other proper officer of the City or town where the Defendant dwells or can be found and therefore in that there is manifest error.

There is also manifest error in this that is to say that it appears in and by the said record here sent that the said Lodowick Post came into the Court of the People of the State of New York before the said Justice on the thirtieth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and two and then and there affirmed his plaint against the said Jesse Peirson in the said action and prayed process against the said Jesse Peirson by summons and that thereupon the said Justice at the prayer of the said Lodowick Post issued a summons requiring the Constable to summon the said Jesse Peirson to appear before him[,] the said Justice[,] on Thursday the thirtieth day of December in the year last aforesaid at two oclock in the afternoon of the same day to answer to the

said

     [Transcript, p. 12]

said Lodowick Post in the said action which said thirtieth day of December last mentioned was the same day on which the said plaint was affirmed and the said summons was issued[.] [W]hereas by law every summons in actions before Justices of the peace ought to be made returnable not less than six nor more than twelve days from the time of issuing such summons and every such summons ought by law to be served at least six days before the time of appearance mentioned therein and therefore in that also there is manifest error[.]

There is also manifest error in this that is to say that the declaration[,] complaint[,] or demand of the said Lodowick Post against the said Jesse Peirson specified and set forth in the said record here sent upon which the said judgment was rendered and given and the matters contained therein are not sufficient in law for the said Lodowick Post to have[,] maintain[,] or support his said action against the said Jesse Peirson and therefore the said judgment thereupon rendered and given is vicious[,] erroneous[,] and void in law and therefore in that also there is great and manifest error.

There is also manifest error in this that is to say that it appears by the Venire annexed to the said record here sent that the said Venire issued by the said Justice in the said action [?required?] the Constable to whom it was directed to summon twelve good and lawful freeholders of the town of Southampton to be and appear before him the said justice and without specifying the purpose for which the said twelve

freeholders

     [Transcript, p. 13]

freeholders were to appear before him[,] the said Justice[.] [W]hereas by law the said Venire ought to have commanded the Constable to whom it was directed to summon twelve good and lawful men being freeholders of the said town to be and appear before him[,] the said Justice[,] to make a jury for the trial of the action between the parties mentioned in the said Venire and therefore in that also there is manifest error.

There is also manifest error in this that is to say that it appears in and by the said record here sent that the jury who tried the said cause between the said parties found a Verdict for the plaintiff with seventy five cents damages and it farther appears that the said jury did not find[,] award[,] or assess any costs whatever in the said action for or in favor of the said Lodowick Post and nevertheless it farther appears in and by the said record that the said Justice did adjudge[,] consider[,] and determine that the said Lodowick Post should recover against the said Jesse Peirson five dollars for his costs and charges by him about his suit in that behalf expended[.] [W]hereas by law no costs of increase or other costs whatever can be adjudged or awarded to the plaintiff in any such case unless the jury who try the cause find and assess costs for and in favor of the plaintiff separately and distinctly from the damages which they find and assess for and in favor of the plaintiff and therefore in that also there is manifest error.

     [Transcript, p. 14]

There is also error in this that is to say that it farther appears in and by the said record here sent that the judgment rendered and given in the said action by the said Justice was rendered and given for the said Lodowick Post against the said Jesse Peirson[.] [W]hereas by the law of the land judgment ought to have been rendered and given in the said action for the said Jesse Peirson against the said Lodowick Post and therefore in that also there is great and manifest error.

     And hereupon the said Jesse Peirson prays that the said judgment for the errors above specified and assigned and also for many other errors apparent in the said plaint[,] process[,] proceedings[,] record[,] and judgment may be reversed[,] annulled[,] revoked[,] set aside[,] and altogether held for nothing and that he[,] the said Jesse Peirson[,] may be restored to all the things which he has lost by reason of the said judgment [?] and that the said Lodowick Post may rejoin to the said errors [?].

     And hereupon the said Lodowick by Cadwallader D. Colden[,]* his attorney[,] voluntarily comes here into Court and having heard the errors aforesaid forthwith says that neither in the plaint and proceedings aforesaid nor in the giving the judgment aforesaid is there error and prays that the Court of the said People before the said Justices now here would proceed to the examination as well of the plaint and proceedings aforesaid as of the matters above assigned for error and that the judgment

aforesaid

* Cadwallader David Colden (1769–1834), attorney, from Flushing, New York, who practiced in Poughkeepsie and New York City.

     [Transcript, p. 15]

[?7?]

aforesaid may be affirmed [?].

     *And because the Court of the People of the State of New York now here** are not yet advised of giving their judgment of and upon the [???] of and upon the same premises for that the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised thereof[.] On which day before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany come the said parties by their said Attornies[.] [/] And because the Court of the People of the State of New York now here*** is not yet advised of giving their judgment of and upon the premises [a] day thereof is given to the said parties until the second Monday in November next before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of New York to hear their judgment of and upon the same premises for that the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised thereof. On which day**** before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of New York come the said parties by their said Attornies[.] [/] And because the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised of giving their judgment of and upon the premises [a] day thereof is given to the said parties until the first Monday in February next before the Justices of the People of the State of

* I bold the alternating cities and dates, placing them in a different font, along with an inserted [/] section break where I take the case to be carried over from term to term, in order to help facilitate reading of this swath-like part of the document.

** Presumably the May Term 1803 (New York City), which the case was originally intended for.

*** Presumably August Term 1803 (Albany).

**** November Term 1803 (New York City).

     [Transcript, p. 16]

New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany to hear their judgment of and upon the same premises for that the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised thereof. On which day* before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany come the said parties by their said Attornies[.] [/] And because the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised of giving their judgment of and upon the premises [a] day thereof is given to the said parties until the first Monday in May next before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of New York to hear their judgment of and upon the same premises for that the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised thereof. On which day** before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of New York come the said parties by their said Attornies[.] [/] [A]nd because the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised of giving their judgment of and upon the premises [a] day therefore is given to the said parties until the first Monday in August next [???] at the City Hall
of the City of New York come the said parties by their said Attornies[.] And because the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised of giving their judgment of and upon the premises [a] day thereof is given to the said parties

until

* February Term 1804 (Albany).

** May Term 1804 (New York City).

     [Transcript, p. 17]

until the first Monday in Albany next before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany to hear their [???]
premises [a] day is therefore given to the said parties to come before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany on the first Monday in August next to hear their judgment of and upon the same premises for that the Court of the People of the State of New York now here are not yet advised thereof. On which day* before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany come the said parties by their said Attornies[.] [/] [A]nd because the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised of giving their judgment of and upon the premises [a] day therefore is given to the said parties until the second Monday in November next before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of New York to hear their judgment of and upon the same premises for that the Court of the People of [the] State of New York now here are not yet advised thereof. On which day** before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of New York come the said parties by their said Attornies[.] [/] [A]nd because the Court of the People of

* August Term 1804 (Albany).

** November Term 1804 (New York City).

     [Transcript, p. 18]

the State of New York now here is not yet advised of giving their judgment of and upon the premises [a] day therefore is given to the said parties until the first Monday in February next before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany to hear their judgment of and upon the said premises for that the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised thereof. On which day* before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany come the said parties by their said Attornies[.] [/] [A]nd because the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised of giving their judgment of and upon the premises [a] day therefore is given to the said parties until the first Monday in May next before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of New York to hear their judgment of and upon the same premises for that the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised thereof. On which day** before the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court [?of?] the Justices of the [?People?] of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany to hear their judgment of and upon the same premises for that the Court of the People of the State of New York now here is not yet advised thereof. On which day*** before

the

* February Term 1805 (Albany).

** May Term 1805 (New York City). Why the city that next appears is Albany rather than New York is puzzling.

*** It is unclear whether this is the May Term in New York or the August Term in Albany. It would fit with the reported decision if the case was finally heard in August Term 1805 (Albany). However, the day referred to here would seem to still be the first Monday in May even though that term belongs to New York City, not Albany.

     [Transcript, p. 19]

[?9?]

the Justices of the People of the State of New York of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the same People at the City hall of the City of Albany come the said parties by their said Attornies whereupon all and singular the premises being seen and [???] of the People of the State of New York now here fully understood and as well the process and proceedings in the said return mentioned and the judgment given thereupon as the said causes and matters by the said Jesse Peirson above assigned for error being diligently inspected and examined and mature deliberation being [?thereon first?] had for that it seems to the Court of the People of the State of New York now here that there is manifest error in the said record and proceedings and also in the rendering and giving of the said judgment. Therefore it is [?ordered?] [???] judgment [???]

and given by the said John N. Fordham[,] the said Justice for the said errors and for other errors in the said record and proceedings be reversed[,] revoked[,] annulled[,] entirely set aside[,] and altogether held for nothing and that the said Jesse Peirson be restored to all things which he the said Jesse Peirson has lost by reason of the said judgment[.] And it is farther considered that the said Jesse Peirson do recover against the said Lodowick Post One hundred & twenty one dollars & thirty seven cents for his costs and charges by him the said Jesse Peirson about the prosecution of the writ of certiorari aforesaid in this behalf expended to the said Jesse Peirson according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided by the Court of the People of the State of New York now here at his request adjudged and that the said Jesse Peirson have execution thereof [?].

*Judgment signed the 10^th day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five.

Daniel D. Tompkins** [Swirl]

* This text appears sideways in the space above. See original. The handwriting is different than the rest of the record, although it is the same as at least one other place of inserted text (see ↑ ↓ at Transcript, p. 7).

** Tompkins signature would appear to be an original. This hand is distinctive and appears nowhere else in the document. See original.

     [Transcript, p. 20]

New York Supreme Court

Jesse Peirson vs. Lodowick Post

} Record

[?]

Sanford Att[orne]y

[?] Septem[ber] 10^th 1805

[?]