Viewing page 90 of 243

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

16
No 1 & 3 were rejected
Instruction [[strikethrough]] Charge [[/strikethrough]] to Jury
(M)
No 2. That if the Jury believe from the evidence that the renting of the Pltff from the Deft of the premises in question was upon an agreement that was not to be performed withing a year from the date of said agreement then the plaintiff cannot recover unless the said agreement was in writing or some note or memorandum thereof, signed by the Deft or her agent
Granted

Instruction to Jury
(N)
Given by the Court as a substitution for instruction No 1 of the Deft rejected by the Court.
That if the Jury believe from the evidence that the Pltff rented the premises in question from the Deft of her agent and that said renting was for term of three years then the pltff cannot recover in this action unless said renting was evidenced by a contract or agreement (or memorandum or not thereof) in writing and signed by the deft or her agent, unless the Jury further believes that bonds or notes for the said renting were executed by the pltff & his securities and delivered to the deft and accepted by her and the possession of the Mill property in controversy delivered to the said pltff who took possession thereof in pursuance of said contract and was afterwards dispossessed by Deft then in such case the court instructs the July that said renting is valid and binding for one year at the least
Granted W.U. Gaines