Mead v. Arms

This was a complaint for not prosecuting an audita querela, which said Arms had procured to be regularly served upon said Mead. Said writ was made returnable to this court. ArmsfmbxQ than twelve days before the commencement of the term, had caused to be served upon Mead,by a copy, a written notice that he should not enter nor prosecute said writ.This he did to prevent any attendance at Court on account ofsaid writ; and to save future cost. The counsel for Mead acknowledged the service of notice, but contended that he was employed, and charged his client with a retaining fee, before the…