agreeably to the former practice of this court, a bill taken pro confesso is viewed as true in relation to all matters of fact. *

If an improvement had been made by the defendant, during the interval between the passing the act of 1777 Ird. p. 292, and the act of 1778, Ird. p. 351, the case might deserve some consideration, supposing the defendant not to have been attached to the British ; But taking the bill as true, as to matters of fact, the case admits of no doubt. The 5th section of the act of 1778, does expressly forbid any entries [*32] where the defendant claims, and declares them void as well as all grants obtained thereon.

This prohibition continued until John Armstrong’s office was opened in the year 1783, Ird. 446.

The defendants entry was unlawful; nor ought a grant to have issued on it.

In decreeing the grant of the defendant null and void, we shall say nothing more than the act has already declared. Let it be so decreed, and a perpetual injunction.