Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for The Virginia Gazette
Story September 13, 1770

The Virginia Gazette

Williamsburg, Virginia

What is this article about?

In a court trial, a gentleman sued Miss I---s over a 3000 l. bond from January 1769. Lord Bolingbroke testified as witness. The judge upheld the bond, ruling it valid for value received while she lived exclusively with him, awarding her the amount plus costs and damages.

Clipping

OCR Quality

98% Excellent

Full Text

On Thursday afternoon the sittings in term began, when eleven causes were tried, among which was an action between a Gentleman and Miss I---s, on a bond granted by the former to the latter for 3000 l. Several bonds had been granted and cancelled, but that in January, 1769, was the bone of contention. Lord Bolingbroke gave evidence to the reality of the deed, as he himself had been a subscribing witness thereto. The Judge observed, that if Miss I---s had been a common prostitute, he would instantly have set aside the bond as void and null, but as it was granted for value, and that she lived with the Gentleman at the time, giving her company to none other, the point of law was on her side, and the bond fell to be sustained; and so the jury, without going out of court, decided in her favour, with costs of suit, and other damages.

What sub-type of article is it?

Historical Event Curiosity

What themes does it cover?

Justice Love

What keywords are associated?

Court Trial Bond Dispute Mistress Bond Legal Judgment Witness Testimony

What entities or persons were involved?

Gentleman Miss I S Lord Bolingbroke The Judge

Story Details

Key Persons

Gentleman Miss I S Lord Bolingbroke The Judge

Event Date

January 1769

Story Details

A gentleman contested a 3000 l. bond given to Miss I---s in January 1769. Lord Bolingbroke confirmed its authenticity. The judge ruled the bond valid as it was for value and she was his exclusive companion, not a common prostitute, leading to a jury verdict in her favor with costs and damages.

Are you sure?