# Manx Primary Source Archive — Transcription

**Source image:** `20260219_102627.jpg`  
**Transcribed:** 2026-02-25 20:32  
**Method:** Automated (Claude Batch API — claude-opus-4-6)

---

At Castletown 20^th Sep^r 1764.

James Clark & Joney his wife Plt^fs

David Corteen Mary his wife
and others Defendants }

We the Keys of Man now Assembled having in obedience to the
Worshipful Deputy Gov^rs Order of Reference granted on the Petition of
James Clark & Joney his wife and plt^fs David Corteen, Mary his wife &
others Def^ts for that the Defend^ts withhold and detain from the said Plt^fs
a parcel of Quarterland lying & being in the Parish of K.K. Christ Lezayre
of the Annual rent of of Twenty pence or thereab^ts and having perused
& considered the Sheading & Travers Jury's Verdict with what was otherwise
offered by the partys on a full hearing of this Cause DO say and are
of Opinion that both the Sheading Jury & Traverse Jury proceeded illegal
in as much as it appears to us that the Plt^fs are intitled & ought to recover
only the three small Gardens part & parcel of s^d 20^d rent action'd for, but
the other parcel distinguished by the name of the North end of the Flatt
we leave in the Possession according to the Title of John Cottier dated 27^th
Jan^ry 1752 and this we return as our opinion & Judgement in s^d

present Thomas Moore John Moore William Murray George Moore
Math Christian Hugh Cronnkan Tho^s Gawns Peter In^s Heywood John Taubman
W^m Qualtrough Edward Christian R.A. Heamen [?] Tho^s Kaigher Philip Moore
Tho^s Radcliffe John Lucas Tho^s Moore W^m Cubbon John Lissett [?]
Tho^s E Christian

At Castletown 20^th Sep^t 1764

John Kneen plt }
and
Patr^k Cughey Deft }

We the Keys of Man now Assembled having in obedience to the
worshipful Deputy Governors order of Reference proceeded to hear a
certain dispute or Difference touching a road or Way claimed by one
John Kneen in the parish of K.K. Maughold, on & through the Land
of Edward Cughey part & parcel of the Estate of Tolsawe in said parish
of K.K. Maughold and having perused the Great Inquest & Long Jurys
Verdicts pass'd & given in this Cause & duly heard & considered the partys
by themselves & their Attorneys with what was otherwise offered
thereon, DO say & are of opinion that the Long Jury proceeded
illegal in reversing the great Inquest's Verdict for that it evidently
appears to us, that the plt John Kneen is well intitled to a road
or way on the Defend^ts Land agreeable to the Great Inquest's