Volume 1 — Root's Connecticut Reports

<p>Money in tlie hands of an officer received and indorsed by 'him on an execution, not liable to be levied upon as the property of the creditor in the execution. Money paid upon an assigned debt is the property of the assignee.</p>

<p>Action of ejectment for a lot of land in Hartford.</p> <p>Plea — not guilty. Issue to the jury.</p> <p>The jury find a special verdict — That Sarah and Hannah Burr were seized in fee of one-half of the demanded premises, by force of a deed from Isaac Burr to- them, dated the 18th of January A. D. 1126, and of the other half, by force of a deed from Timothy Phelps, dated, both of said deeds are recited in the special verdict,' and convey the estate to said Sarah and Hannah jointly — That they continued so seized until the death of said Sarah — That said Sarah before her death, made and published her last will and testament, which has since been proved and approved, and therein and thereby gave and devised to Isaac Burr, Jr. son of said Isaac, all lier riglit and tillo to one moiety of said lot; which will is dated tlie 26tli of September A. D. 1750 — That said Isaac, Jr. died intestate, and his personal estate insolvent — -That said land devised to him by said Sarah, was sold pursuant to an act of the general assembly, for the payment of his debts, to Dr. Sylvester Gardner, under whom, the defendant claims and holds — That said Hannah survived the said Sarah and by deed of bargain and sale, dated the 24th of August, A. D. 1758, sold and conveyed to the plaintiff all her right, title and interest to said lot of land, which deed is also recited.</p> <p>And the question of law referred to the court upon the verdict is, whether the plaintiff upon the facts aforesaid is entitled to the whole or only one moiety of the demanded premises — Tf the former, then the jury find the defendant guilty ■— if the latter, then the jury find the defendant not guilty.</p>

Action of trespass. The case was — The proprietors of the town of Coventry in the original laying of their lots, at a certain place, left a strip of land forty rods wide, for the use of a highway; afterwards, another ten acre division was to he laid out, and Peter Buel ancestor of tlie plaintiff, requested to have his lot laid in that place on the highway, which was accordingiy done, and the highway reduced to twenty rods in width; this lot of land afterwards came to the…

Action of ejectment, for a piece of ground in Dew Haven, on which was a shop built by the defendant. The defendant plead not guilty — Issue to the jury. Tlie defendant offered to prove — That he had been in possession more than fifteen years, claiming and holding the same for himself and against all others.

<p>A guardian not liable to be sued by bis ward, until called upon by the judge of probate to account, etc.</p>

<p>Where a penalty is given for continuing a nuisance per week, one o-nly may be sued for at a time.</p>

<p>If a writ of error is not brought within three years from the day, judgment was entered up, it is barred by the statute.</p>

<p>An officer is not liable for an eccape where he takes sufficient bail which afterwards fails.</p>

Writ of Error. Price took Webster’s sheep' damage feasant and .impounded them; Webster replevied them, and charged Price in trespass for the taking; the justice gave judgment in favor of Price upon the replevin, and that Webster should pay the damage, or return the sheep; Webster appeals to the County Court, but did not prosecute his appeal; Price took out the copies and entered them in the adjourned court and had the judgment of the justice affirmed, and then brings a scire…

<p>An alias execution granted against the estate of a debtor who went out of prison after taking the oath, for want of support.</p>

<p>Stock on deck thrown overboard to save the vessel and cargo, entitled to an average loss.</p>

<p>An intentional deviation will not excuse tlie underwriters, tout ttoere must toe an actual deviation.</p>

<p>Action at law lies for one town against another for providing for a pauper in case of sickness.</p>

D. 1767, for £30 payable in one year, with the lawful interest.

<p>A promise to pay or discount for what a tract of land shall fall short of the quantity in the deed, not within the Statute against Frauds and Perjuries.</p>

<p>Under tlie plea of full payment accord and satisfaction cannot be given in evidence. The defendant may have liberty to alter his plea although the case is on trial to the jury.</p>

<p>The deposition of another who had a child sick that she could not leave it, admitted.</p>

<p>Where a witness is interested in the question of fact on trial he cannot he admitted.</p>

ActioN of ejectment for a farm which the plaintiff had mortgaged to Mr. Apthorp; he paid the interest of the debt to Apthorp, and took a parol lease from him of said farm for a term: Holmes leased the farm to the defendant for a number of years; at the expiration of the term the defendant refused to resign up the premises; and on trial upon the general issue to the jury, the defendant insisted, that the plaintiff had no title to the land; but that the title was in Apthorp;…

<p>Eeboe to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action of assumpsit, brought by said Brown and wife against Clark; declaring, that in consideration of a deed executed by the wife, when a feme sole, of a certain, piece of land, described, tbe said Clark assumed and promised to pay to ber the sum of £14 lawful money in a reasonable time; which he has never performed.</p> <p>To this declaration the defendant demurred —And judgment of the County Court, that the declaration is sufficient; and for the plaintiffs to recover.</p> <p>Errors assigned are — 1st. That there is no direct averment that said deed was ever delivered. 2d. That said promise is by parol, and within the statute made to prevent frauds and perjuries. ' ,</p>

<p>In an action for giving her a dose, the mother allowed to relate what the plaintiff told the nest morning.</p>

<p>AotxoN of ejectment, for a tract of land lying in Chatham. Plea not guilty. Issue to the jury.</p> <p>The case was — ■ On the 2d of May, A. D. 1763, the plaintiff took a deed of said land, of that date, from. John Grill who was the owner, and carried it to the town register to be entered upon, received for record, but with orders not to be recorded until further orders; the register received it and entered upon it, “ John Ray’s mortgage deed from John Grill, June 7th, A. D. 1763 received for record, 'William Rockwell,” and put it away in a private box, where he kept such deeds: In October A. D. 1763 the defendant was applied to by Gill to be surety for him, and for his indemnity, proffered him a deed of said land, and the defendant before he complied, went to the register and searched the records, found no deed to any person,, nor was informed of any being lodged there, and being wholly ignorant of said Ray’s deed, he became surety for Gill, and for his indemnity took a deed of said land from Gill, dated in October A. D. 1763, and carried it to the register and had it duly recorded. Gill finally failed, and Bush was obliged to pay the debt for which he was surety. In. June, A. D. 1764, the plaintiff gave orders to have said deed recorded; and it was then and not before recorded at length.</p> <p>Tbe defendant offered parol evidence to prove tbat tbe plaintiff bad been, guilty of a fraud, in ordering' tbe -deed not to be recorded at tbe time be left it to be entered upon as aforesaid; also to show bow said deed bad been kept, and when, it was recorded at length. This was objected to, because it would contradict tbe record.</p>

ActioN of ejectment for a tract of land. Tbe defendant plead in bar, tbat one Jonathan Luce made and published bis will, at a certain time, wliicb lias since been proved and approved; by wliicb be gave all bis estate, botb real and personal, to bis wife Jemima; tliat tbe demanded premises was a part of bis real esiate at tbe time of bis decease, and by force of said will vested in tbe said Jemima, from whom tbe defendant derives a title to himself in bis plea.

Actiox of trespass, assault and battery, committed by the wife. Plea not guilty. Issue to the jury.

<p>Tlie plaintiff upon a reversal, must enter Ms action at tlie same court.</p>

<p>A sum paid on account of a note and not applied, recovered back in an action of book-debt.</p>

Whit of Error to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in. an action brought by Steadman against Baclcock upon a note.

<p>"Weit of Error, to reverse a judgment of a justice.</p>

ActioN upon the administration bond, given for said John. In the declaration the penal part and the condition of the bond were set forth, with an averment; that the defendants had never paid said penalty, nor performed the condition of said bond.

<p>Where on a criminal prosecution the defendant is out upon hail,, the court will not receive the verdict, unless he appears.</p>

ActioN of indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received for the plaintiff’s use. Plea nonassumpsit. Issue to the jury.

Weit oe Eeeoe, to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action, brought by Hartshorn against Halsey; declaring that at a certain time, he had a certain execution as an officer, to levy and collect; that he levied it upon a home, the property of the debtor, and posted it as the law directs; that upon the request of the defendant, he delivered said horse to him to keep, in consideration whereof, the defendant agreed and promised to redeliver said horse to the plaintiff…

<p>A person illegally imprisoned may be discharged upon a habeas corpus. ;</p>

Wkit op ERROR is brought to reverse a judgment of the Maritime Court in granting a new trial upon tlie petition of Northrup v. Pruden, etc. alleging that be seized and libeled a certain vessel and cargo, belonging to them, for contravening the Embargo Laws; and that upon trial the vessel and cargo was acquitted: That be has since discovered that one Helms, who was the principal witness for the claimants, and by whoso testimony the vessel, etc. was cleared, was interested in…

ActioN of ejectment for a piece of land. Tbe case from tbe declaration and pleadings was thus — O'apt. Knowles of Hartford, in. and by bis last will and testament, dated the 30th of November A. D. 1753, devised certain lands, including the demanded premises, to his son Samuel and to the heirs of his body forever. The testator died and liis will was proved and approved.

ActioN on a note, dated the 29th of December. The defendant plead in bar, that said note was executed on the 30th ■of December which was Sunday or Lord’s day, and not on the 29th of said December the day it bears date.

<p>A "WraT or Eeeor, complaining of a judgment of a justice in an action, brought by said Borroughs against said Mills, upon a note for £.10 lawful money and witnessed by two witnesses. To which said Mills plead in abatement, that said note was executed and delivered into the hands of certain arbitrators, to hold andi deliver to said Borroughs, upon condition they made and published their award upon certain matters submitted, and he failed to abide it, to compel him to perform the same; and that said note is not for money only, as it purports to be on the face of it, and that the same is not cognizable before a single minister of justice, but before the County Court. Demurrer.</p> <p>Judgment — That the plea is insufficient, and that the defendant answer over to the action; and afterwards judgment was rendered by said justice for said Borroughs upon the merits.</p> <p>Error assigned is — That said justice ought to have judged said plea in abatement, sufficient.</p>

<p>An execution returnable according to law, runs to the next court, which is sixty days or more from the date of the execution.</p>

AotioN of book-debt, for a debt due from, said deceased. Plea in abatement —■ That the estate of said deceased was represented insolvent, and commissioners were appointed; and that the plaintiff exhibited to them, the demand on book for which this action is brought, and was by said commissioners examined and disallowed.

<p>Action of debt on book lies for money paid on a note that has not been applied.</p>

<p>AotioN of account brought against tbe defendant as executor aforesaid.</p> <p>Tbe defendant plead — That be was not, nor ever bad been executor of tbe last will, etc. of said Pbinebas Lyman deceased, nor bad be ever administered as sucb. On wbicb tbe parties were at issue to tbe jury.</p> <p>Tbe plaintiff offered evidence to. prove that certain lands wbicb were tbe property of said deceased, at tbe time of bis death, bad been taken and disposed of by tbe defendant: Also, that tbe defendant bad taken and disposed of certain goods and chattels wbicb were held under a fraudulent bill of sale, given of them by tbe deceased in bis lifetime; wbicb evidence was objected to by tbe defendant.</p>

<p>A prisoner’s going out of prison, 'who is upon bonds, is a negligent escape.</p>

<p>Writ or Error, to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in a prosecution for maintenance of a bastard child, brought by said Hitchcock v. Grant upon the statute. The defendant plead in bar, that the complainant had not been constant in her accusation of said Grant, and that she did not accuse him of being the father of said child in the time of her travail.</p> <p>Tbe plaintiff admitted in her reply, that sbe did not, and assigned some reasons wby sbe did not. To wbieb a demurrer was given; and tbe County Court judged tbe reply to be insufficient.</p> <p>Error assigned — Tbat said County Court ought to bave judged said reply sufficient.</p>

<p>An appeals lies from a judgment given upon, nihil dicit.</p>

<p>In a loan of final settlement notes, an agreement to secure the repayment of said final settlements at a future day, in notes of the same tenor, date and value, with the lawful interest; and to give a note for a further sum in good money for the loan of said final settlements, is a corrupt agreement and will render hath notes given in pursuance of such agreement usurious, and void by the statute. ,</p>

<p>The statute respecting absentees is not a penal but a remedial statute. Where the assignee of a note was with the enemy, if the promissee remained at home, in the United States, and was not a bankrupt; the case is not within the statute.</p>

<p>Weit or Error against the judgment of the Comity Court, in an action Ely v. Stow brought on a note dated 14-th June, A. Eh 1786, for £72 lawful money, payable with interest; against which note the defendant filed a hill in chancery upon the statute; complaining that said note was usurious and oppressive; for that in A. D. 1782, Daniel Stow, Jr. son of the defendant, was on hoard of a vessel with one Colton, who had a quantity of tobacco' on hoard, designed for Plumb Island; that said Colton proposed to leave said vessel, and to sell his tobacco to said Daniel Jr. for the sum of £57 lawful money; to which said Daniel agreed and gave his note, without interest, and which was to he paid out of the avails of the tobacco; that said Colton altered his mind, and remained on hoard, sold his tobacco himself, and took the avails of it; but did not deliver np said note; that in A. D. 1786, said Daniel, Jr. went to Springfield upon the desire of said Colton, to settle tlie affairs of said voyage; and said Colton and the plaintiff having got him there, they caused him to he arrested and imprisoned on said note; upon which the defendant, father of the said Daniel, heing applied to by the plaintiff, and said Colton, and informed of his son’s situation, and heing ignorant of the injustice of said first note, Avas induced, in order to relieve his son from imprisonment, to give the note on which, etc. and for no other cause or consideration; in which is included said first note, interest and cost; and is usurious and oppressive.</p> <p>To this complaint a demurren was given — and the County Court gave judgment, that said complaint was sufficient, and that the plaintiff recover nothing on said note.</p> <p>Error assigned — That said court ought to have judged said complaint insufficient, and for the plaintiff to recover. The plaintiff in error, having in his writ described the time of the County Court’s sitting to have been on the second Tuesday of April, whereas it sat on the first, moved to amend his writ, by striking out second and inserting first to make it conformable to the record, which upon dispute was allowed to be done, on payment of cost, as being within the Statute of Amendments.</p>

<p>Money for tlie support of prisoners wlio have taken the- insolvent delator’s oatli, is to he lodged with tlie gaoler.</p>

Action on a note, declaring that the defendants in and hy a certain note, etc. jointly and severally promised to pay to him, etc. Bichareis prays oyer of the note and pleads in abatement; that there is a material variance between the note declared upon and the note shown on oyer; for that the note shown on oyer appears to have been executed by Buel only, for himself and Richards; and that he could not hind Richards severally although the note is so expressed. Demurrer.

<p>Action of trespass, assault, and false imprisonment. Plea not guilty. Issue to the jury.</p> <p>The jury found a special verdict as follows, (viz.) That on the 12th of Pune, A. D. 1788, the defendant was constable of Wallingford, and as such had in his hands a lawful writ of execution .in favor of James Gordon of Plainfield, against the plaintiff, for the sum of £13 12s. 2d. lawful money, dated 23d of April, A. D. 1788, returnable in sixty days: That on said 12th of June, the defendant applied to the plaintiff, and made demand of money and estate to satisfy said execution, and none being shown to Mm, he levied upon the body of the plaintiff; and on the 13th of same June committed him to gaol: The jury further found that immediately after said execution'was levied as aforesaid, the plaintiff then and there in said Wallingford, offered and tendered to the defendant, sufficient personal estate to satisfy said execution, and his fees, of his own property; and the defendant refused to receive or to take said estate and release the body of the plaintiff.</p> <p>The jury then raised the question of law about which they doubted, viz.— If the law be so upon the facts aforesaid, that the defendant ought to have taken the estate tendered to him as aforesaid, and released his body, then they find the defendant guilty, and £15 damages for the plaintiff: But if the law be otherwise, then they find that the defendant is not guilty. _</p> <p>The court are of opinion. — .That the law is so upon the facts aforesaid that the defendant ought to have received said, estate tendered, and released the body of the plaintiff; and gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover £15 damages and cost.</p>

Weit oe ERROR, to reverse a judgment of a justice of the peace, upon a note of £10, given to oblige the party to abide the award of arbitrators, and witnessed by two witnesses. Plea to the jurisdiction of the justice — That this is not a note for money only, but is to bind the party to perform the award of arbitrators. Judgment • — ■ Plea insufficient. Error — That said justice ought to have judged said plea sufficient. Plea — Rothing erroneous. Judgment — Manifest error.

<p>Action for the escape of one "Warren, committed on execution, through, the insufficiency of the gaol.</p> <p>Judgment last court — That the county was liable. The debt is about £500.</p> <p>Question upon a hearing in damages ■ — ■ Whether judgment should be for the whole debt and the lawful fees; or only for the special damages the plaintiff had sustained by the escape.</p>

Action on a note for £20 on interest, dated 15th January A. I). 1788, given to oblige the defendant to abide an award. Writ is dated the 2d of April A. D. 1788, and demands £30 damages. Plea in abatement of the appeal — That the original matters of controversy submitted, did not exceed £20: That the sum awarded is hut £13 5s. 5d. Which facts were admitted; and said plea in abatement was judged sufficient.

Action on a note, conditioned, that Sarah Eerress should abide a. faithful prisoner, who was in gaol on an execution. Breach alleged, is — That she escaped on the 22d of April A. D. 1785.

Writ of Error, complaining that he commenced an action against said Bates to tlie County Court, on a note given to said M’Donald: That said Bates plead in bar of said action, that there was included in and secured by said note more than lawful interest, by the corrupt agreement of the parties; and that said note by force of the statute, was void — on which facts the parties were at issue to the jury; who found that there was not included in and secured by said note more than…

Action to recover pay for supporting one Samuel Allen a pauper. Issue to the jury. The pauper was horn in A. D. 1757; his parents were then settled in Fair field; afterwards his father died. Ills grandfather, who also was set lied in Fairfield, took guardianship of him in A. 3). 17(54. Ilis mother married another lmshand, whose name was Allen, and was also settled in Fairfield.

<p>Action of debt on book. Plea •— Owe nothing. Issue to the jury. Book was for £45' paid to the deceased on a note.</p> <p>The defendant objected to the plaintiff’s being admitted a witness to prove the article charged: But by the court he was admitted, on the ground of precedents; the case of Prentice v. Phillips, adjudged at Hartford, was cited; and a bill of exceptions was filed.</p> <p>The plaintiff testified — That he paid the money to said deceased and took of Mm a receipt, which he had lost: That the whole sum of the note on wMch he paid it, had been recovered of him with the interest.</p>

Acrnox upon the statute, entitled an act for the encouragement of literature and genius; for bringing into this state and selling 1,500 copies of Webster’s Institute of English Grammar, of which they claimed the copyright; contrary to the statute, and in violation of their right, and demanding the penalty. Plea not guilty. Issue to the jury.

<p>A juryman may not converse with any person not of tlie jury, upon ' tlie merits of a cause under consideration. A juryman whose conduct is impeached by a motion in arrest may not be a witness.</p>

<p>Information for a riot. Hot guilty plead. Issue to the court. Shaw was an officer, had a warrant against one Allen for lewd behayior; Allen had given out high threatenings against Shaw: Shaw took these people with him to assist him in taking of Allen; as he had constantly avoided him. After making known his business, and demanding admittance into the house, being refused, he broke the door, and entered the house with two of his assistants; the others did nothing, but remained out doors.</p>

<p>A constable may not be clioson out of tlie month of December, only in ease of death or removal.</p>

<p>In trover, if the effect of the suit is to recover the thing demanded, the plaintiff shall have full cost, although the jury found the special damages under forty shillings.</p>

<p>Upon a remonstrance to a return of auditors tbe court, will inquire of tbe auditors upon wliat principles they made out tbe balance.</p>

<p>Petition in chancery to foreclose the equity of redemption in certain mortgaged premises.</p>

<p>Scire Pacías against Baldwin as debtor to one Dimoclc, an absent absconding debtor. Issue 'was closed to the jury. Question was put to the court, whether such a cause might be tried by the jury. By the court it may.</p>

<p>AotioN of debt by book. Plea — owe nothing. Issue to-jury. The hook consisted of two articles; one for cash paid £4, and one for an order drawn in favor of tlie defendant, on William Campbell, for £60 value received.</p> <p>Question to the court — Whether such an order may he charged on hook; and whether the plaintiff may he admitted to swear to it, when in the writing he has acknowledged that he has received the value.</p>

<p>In an action by an officer, for goods taken in execution, upon a special undertaking of the defendant to keep and redeliver tiiem; it is not necessary to aver that lie xiosted tiiem, nor tliat the judgment remains in force unsatisfied.</p>

ActioN of ejectment. Plea not guilty to jury. Plaintiff’s title — -The levy of an execution upon said Panning’s land; to which levy, three exceptions were taken by the defendant; 1st. That by a written agreement the execution was not to have been taken out so soon by two months, as it was. 2d. That William Williams, Esq. who appointed one of the appraisers, was not the nearest justice to the land who could judge between the parties. 3d. That the appraiser chosen by the…

<p>Accord and satisfaction cannot be given in evidence under the plea of full payment.</p>

<p>Indebitatus assrimpsit will not lie up,on a judgment. It is no defense to an action against an absconding debtor that tbe persons copied, are not bis agents or factors.</p>

<p>.An agreement concerning lands executed on one part, is not within tbe Statute of Frauds and Perjuries.</p>

<p>A note executed on Saturday niglit, between the hours of 11 and 12 p. m. is g-ood.</p>

ActioN of debt on book. Plea owe nothing. Issue to the jury- _ ' ; _ The jury found that the plaintiff had in his hands four barrels of beef, the property of the defendants, for which he gave his receipt; that in A. D. 1184, he delivered said beef to the defendants’ order, but did not take up his receipt; that the defendants brought a special action of the case upon said receipt, and recovered for said beef, and refer the question of law upon the facts aforesaid, to- the…

<p>[Appointed upon Judge Law’s appointment to the office of District Judge.]</p> <p>In a writ of partition, the plaintiff must set forth the right and. proportion he is entitled to in the estate, as a third, a fifth, etc.</p>

AotioN of assumpsit for 2,000 feet of oars, which the defendant received to sell, and promised to account for the avails; value £30; damage demanded £40. Plea in abatement of the appeal — That the oars, the only matter in dispute were not, nor are of the value of £20; and offered parol evidence to prove the value.

<p>It is no cause of arrest, that the jury have found a verdict upon insufficient evidence. A promise, which arises hy operation of law, is not within the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries.</p>

<p>Appeal from probate judgment disaffirmed, no cost allowed.</p>

<p>Title to lands by a fifteen years’ possession, may be acquired, tinder certain circumstances, without being actually inclosed by a fence.</p>

<p>In an action for an escape through tlie insufficiency of tlie gaol, special damages only were given.</p>

<p>An action on Look depending, Is no bar to tlie defendant’s suing tlie plaintiff on book.</p>

<p>A debt assigned is the property of the assignee, and not liable to the creditors of the 'assignor.</p>

<p>'The sheriff has no right to take a bond that his prisoner shall abide in gaol, until he pays the gaoler for his board.</p> <p>The sum claimed by the plaintiff on trial, to remain unpaid, being under £20 has no influence upon the right of appeal.</p>

<p>An action will not lie in favor of iliree partners in trade, for an illegal arrest and iiux)risonment of two of them, upon an obligation given by them all, unless it appears that they are injured in their joint interest.</p>

<p>A. legacy given by will is not to be considered a, satisfaction for a sum secured by a note; unless expressed, or necessarily implied to be so.</p>

Weit op Eeeoe; complaining of a judgment of a justice in an ¡action brought by said Miles et al. fv. Pbelps, as heir to Abel Phelps, upon a bond executed by said Abel to the plaintiff, for £8 19s., dated 29th of August, A. D. 1754; averring that the defendant had received of his father, said Abel, by gift and by legacies, more than-sufficient to pay saidj debt.

<p>Weit OK Error; complaining of a judgment of tbe County Court, in an action of debt brought by Turner against Scot, upon the statute for regulating taverns, etc. and for suppressing unlicensed houses, etc. for the £6 penalty given for the second offense, alleging that he had sold victuals by the meal, hay and provender for horses, and spirituous liquors, by less quantities than the law allows, without license, and that he had been before convicted of said offense before Justice Parmela, as by Ms records, etc. by which, they being recited in the plea in bar, it appeared that the conviction was for selling spirituous liquors only, before Justice Parmela, and the fine £3.</p> <p>The defendant plead a contract he had made when a licensed tavern-keeper, with certain persons to furnish them with victuals, hay, and provender, in excuse for his doing it; and as to his selling spirituous liquors as charged, he says he is not guilty. The plaintiff demurred to the special plea, and joined issue upon the plea of not guilty. The County Court gave judgment, that the defendant’s plea was insufficient, and for plaintiff to recover £6.</p> <p>Errors assigned — 1st. That the offense Scott was convicted of before the justice, was for selling liquors, and the offense he was convicted of by demurrer before the County Court, was for selling victuals, hay, etc. which is a different offense. 2d. That said Justice Parmela had m> jurisdiction to try and convict the said Scot of said first offense.</p> <p>Judgment —■ Manifest error, for both the causes assigned.</p>

<p>An action lies for a fraud, in the sale of an order drawn by selectmen on the town treasurer.</p>

<p>Error to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action Trawl v. Smith, declaring that one Jehiel Sexton was indebted to 1dm. £8 15s. by note; that to secure said debt, he caused a certain horse of said Sexton’s to be attached of more value than said debt, by writ, dated and returnable before Justice Wilcox, to be answered on the 29th of January, A. D. 1787; that said horse was accordingly attached and taken into the custody of the law. That said Sexton applied to the defendant, he being a justice of the peace, for a writ of replevin to replevy said home, which said justice granted, and took said Sexton’s bond only upon said writ; that said Sexton at that time was a bankrupt, known to have but little or no property besides said horse; by virtue of which replevin said horse was taken out of the custody of the law and returned to said Sexton; that the plaintiff recovered judgment on said writ of attachment on said 29th day of January, A. D. 1787, before Justice Wilcox, for the sum of £1 1,5s., lawful money, damages, and thirteen shillings six pence for cost, for which he had execution and delivered it to an officer, who collected thereon fifteen shillings only, and for the residue returned said execution non est inventus; and said Sexton hath no estate and hath absconded; that his bond aforesaid was no security on said replevin, and by means of the wrong-doings of the defendant aforesaid he has lost his said debt to his damage £</p> <p>Demurrer to the declaration — Judgment that the declaration was sufficient, and that the plaintiff recover.</p> <p>Errors assigned —- That said declaration was insufficient; for the law had made the justice the judge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the security to be taken, and of this he judged, and for an error in judgment he was not liable.</p> <p>Judgment —■ Manifest error.</p>

<p>Action declaring that on the 2d of October, A. D. 1786, they purchased of the defendant a piece of land, lying in Washington, containing about three-quarters of an acre, together with a store and barn thereon standing, and that the plaintiffs and the defendant did enter into the following agreement, viz. Washington, October 2d, 1786, agreed that David Leveret, Jr. and Co. give to Peter Slierman £170, lawful money, for bis store, land and barn, in said Washington, one-half to be paid next spring, in cash, when said Sherman is to quit said store and execute a warranty deed of the same to said Leveret and Co. and half the spring following, in good neat cattle, on interest from the first payment till paid; and the plaintiffs say that the defendant did not quit said store nor execute a warranty deed to the plaintiffs in the spring succeeding October, A. D. 1786, according to said agreement, but continued in possession of said premises, and utterly refused to quit or convey the same to the plaintiffs, whereby an action has accrued to the plaintiffs to recover of the defendant their just damages, which is £100, lawful money, writ dated 15th November, A. D. 1788. Plea — Not guilty. Issue to the court.</p> <p>Judgment — That the defendant is not guilty.</p>

<p>A mortgage deed, by which more than lawful interest is secured is void by the statute.</p>

<p>The records of a justice cannot be amended, after the court is over, without there are some minutes in writing, to amend by. Every special issue to the court or jury, must be answered directly in the terms of it.</p>

<p>AotioN of debt, declaring on tlie penal part of a probate bond. Plea in abatement •— That tlie plaintiff ought to have set forth the condition in his declaration.</p> <p>Judgment' — 'Plea insufficient. The condition is in favor of the defendant, and it is for his advantage to set it forth in his plea.</p>

<p>A new trial is granted where the party is deprived of the testimony of a material witness, by his being disconcerted and losing his recollection from some cause or other not to be accounted for.</p>

<p>Signing’ and serving writs are ministerial acts and may t>e done by inhabitants of the town, who are plaintiffs.</p>

ActioN of ejectment. Plea not guilty. Issue to the court. Plaintiff’s title, the levy of an execution against Major Dana, upon this land as his, in December, A. D. 1788.

PetitioN in chancery; showing, that he gave his note to said Eleazer for £28; that he made payment of nearly the whole of said note to said Cary, and charged it on hook; that said Cary’s estate was represented insolvent, and commissioners appointed; that he omitted to exhibit his book to tbe commissioners, by being told by one of the administrators that the payments should he allowed on the note; that said commission is expired, and the administrators have recovered judgment…

<p>Error, complaining of a judgment of the County Court in an action Borland v. Sharp, on a note, dated 25th January A. D. 1784, for £157 10s. and interest.</p> <p>The defendant plead — That on the 6th of October A. D. 1774, he became indebted to John Borland, since deceased, £100 payable with interest; that in April 1775 said John went to and joined the enemy and there remained until his death; that the defendant procured the money in bills to pay said debt, but was unable to get to him and lost the money by depreciation; and after the death of said John said note came into the hands of the plaintiff, who is son and heir of said John, who also was with the enemy, and there continued inaccessible by the defendant until the expiration of the war; that on the 23d of January A. D. 1784 the plaintiff applied to the defendant to renew his note which he did and included all the back interest, not knowing that he could have any relief — and prays for the relief which the statute provides. The County Court inquired into the facts and gave judgment that said debt is within the equity of the statute andi expunged the interest from said debt during the war.</p> <p>Errors assigned —■ 1st. That said note is not within the provisions of said statute. 2d. That said plea is insufficient. 3d. That said judgment is against law.</p>

<p>A person who would have been settled in a new town, had he been at home, when it was formed, is settled there notwithstanding he was then absent, unless he has gained a settlement elsewhere.</p>

<p>A minor is no more liable in chancery for fraud in a contract, than at law.</p>

<p>Action of ejectment, for land mortgaged to the plaintiff.</p> <p>Plea — Not guilty. Issue to the jury.</p>

<p>An administrator is accountable for rents of land, wliere the estate is insolvent.</p> <p>Expenses incurred in the sale of lands in Vermont, not allowable against the estate of the deceased lying in Connecticut.</p>

Scjqie Facias, to have judgment against him in propria persona, dated 19th January, 1190. Plea — That he did receive of said jTabez’s wearing apparel to the amount of twenty shillings only; and that after said Green had commenced his original suit against him, he took administration on said Jabez’s estate, reported it insolvent, and commissioners were appointed and a time allowed for tlie settlement of said estate until the 1st day of May next, which time is not yet expired.

<p>Action of assumpsit, declaring, that in October, A. D. 1786, Montville was incorporated into a town, and taken from the towns of New London, Lyme and Colchester, and in the act of incorporation, it was enacted, that the inhabitants in said town of Montville, which belonged within the town of New London, should pay their part and proportion of all the debts incurred upon the town of New London, according to their list given in the year A. D. 1785 —That said town of Montville appointed a committee to settle and adjust said accounts with the selectmen of said New London — That upon a settlement, there was found due from the inhabitants of that part of Montville, which was taken from New London, the sum of £263 14s. 2d., according to the rule given by said act, and thereupon and in consideration thereof, the plaintiffs say that the defendants being liable, did assume and promise to pay the same, etc.</p>

Actios of ejectment for certain, lands. The defendant plead in bar- — -That on the 10th of Eebruary, A. D. 1787, the plaintiffs, Tisdale Edy and Gilbert Edy, were sole owners of the demanded premises; and by deed of that date, conveyed it to Jonathan Boardman of Preston, and said Jonathan, on the 21st of March, A. D. 1787, by deed conveyed it to Henry Williams; and by agreement, the plaintiff was to remain in possession, one year from said sale; at the expiration of said…

<p>It is no canse for arresting judgment that the jury have found a verdict upon evidence which in the opinion of the court is not sufficient.</p>

Weit or EeeoR, complaining of a judgment of the County Court, in an action upon a bond, for £700, dated 5th of June, A. D. 1758, payable to William Brattle, by the 25th of December after, with interest, and executed by said Gates and one Thomas Gustin, brought by Thomas Brattle administrator of said William v. Gates; writ dated 5th November, A. D. 1785.

<p>Action on note; in which the defendant promised the plaintiff to pay Mm £36 2s. 6d., in West India goods, on demand; and no special demand is laid in the declaration. The defendant demurred to the declaration on that account.</p> <p>Judgment' — -That the declaration is insufficient.</p>

<p>Scire Eacias to have a judgment recovered by said Daniel in his lifetime, affirmed in favor of the plaintiff; alleging that an execution had been issued, and a non est returned upon it; and which the defendant has never paid.</p> <p>The defendant plead in bar — That after said execution was returned non est, an alias execution was taken out in said Daniel’s name against her, and delivered to James Cornwell, a constable of Middletown, and she was compelled! to pay said execution, and did in fact pay it to said constable; and he thereupon indorsed said execution satisfied.</p> <p>The plaintiff replies — That before said alias was taken out the said Daniel died, and that the whole proceedings on said alias execution are null and void, and had by mistake. Demurrer to the reply.</p> <p>Judgment — That the reply is insufficient.</p>

<p>If tlie jury refer the decision of a causa or the assessment of damages to chance — it is good cause of árrest.</p>

Eeeoe to reverse a judgment of the County Court, for cost upon an information of the state’s attorney, against said Eowler, on which he was acquitted. Error assigned — That no cost ought, to be taxed against the defendant in such case. Judgment ■ — ■ Nothing erroneous.

<p>A’ garnishee may be inquired of respecting a mistake in the note, claimed of him.</p> <p>A plaintiff may recover of the garnishee the balance, of a debt, due from him to the absconding debtor, by assignment from others.</p>

The plaintiff and defendant lived in Greenwich, and there were justices in said town, who could judge between the parties. The court was held in Greenwich, by a justice who-belonged to Stamford. Error assigned — That said justice by law had no right to> go out of his own town to try said cause.

<p>If the mortgagee takes possession of the mortgaged premises and forecloses the equity of redemption the debt is discharged.</p>

<p>ERROR to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action Clark v. Lewis, declaring that on the 26th of October A. D. 1189 he was a deputy sheriff, and had in his hands to serve an execution in favor of Jonathan Burral against Ezekiel Lewis, for £12 10s. 3d. lawful money debt and cost, granted, by the-County Court, dated the 22d of September A. D. 1189, and returnable in sixty days — which execution the plaintiff for want of estate had' levied on the body of said Ezekiel, and was about to commit him to gaol; and the defendant applied to the plaintiff and requested that he would deliver the said Ezekiel to him to keep, and redeliver on the 20th of November then next; and the plaintiff upon the request of the defendant delivered the said Ezekiel to him as aforesaid; and the defendant thereupon and in consideration thereof, made and executed to the plaintiff a certain writing, dated October 26th A. D. 1789, wherein and whereby, the defendant promised the plaintiff to deliver to him the said Ezekiel, at the county gaol in Litchfield, on the 20th day of November then next; and on failure thereof, to pay the plaintiff the coiitents of said execution with interest and his fees; that the defendant did not deliyer said Ezekiel, nor bath he paid said execution, etc. To this declaration the defendant demurs specially, 1st. Because the plaintiff has set forth no judgment on which said execution issued. 2d, That there is no profert of the writing declared upon. 3d, That the breach is not well and sufficiently set forth. 4th, That the consideration of said undertaking is illegal, it being for the escape of a prisoner in execution. 5th, The thing to be performed by the defendant is directly contrary to law. Judgment in the County Court, that the declaration is insufficient.</p> <p>General error assigned; and judgment — That there is manifest error in the judgment complained of.</p>

<p>Parol evidence may be admitted to explain a blank indorsement. Inhabitants of a town may be admitted as witnesses in certain cases, from necessity, notwithstanding their corporate interest.</p>

Action of ejectment for land lying in the town of Cornwall, of wbicb tbe plaintiffs declare that they are seized in fee. Tbe title of tbe plaintiffs was made out in tbis manner. These lauds were originally sequestered for the support of the ministry in said Cornwall.

<p>Action of indebitatus assumpsit for one-half of the interest of the school money, and of the money the parsonage land sold for in the town of Waterbury from the month of May, A. D. 1180, the time when the plaintiffs were incorporated into a town, amounting to £200 lawful money. Declaring that before the month of May, A. D. 1180, the societies of Northbury and Westburyj lay within the town of Waterbury; that in May, A. D. 1180, the general assembly incorporated them into a town, by the name of Watertown: And enacted that said Watertown should pay and receive their just proportion of the present existing debts, and credits of said town of Waterbury,. according to their list given in A. D. 1719. A controversy arose between said towns respecting the interest of'the public moneys; which they agreed and referred to the arbitrament of Jobn Treadwell, Homan Swift, and Andrew Ward, Esqrs. wlio baying taken on tbem tire burden of an award, and beard tbe parties, made and published tbeir award in tbe premises, as follows, viz. That there was a great lot, upon £150 propriety, laid out in Waterbury; which said town in A. D. 1690, divided between Jeremiah Peck, Jr. and the schools in said town, with all the after divisions; that in A. D. 1715, said Waterbury granted another lot of £150 propriety, to be disposed, of by the town with all the after divisions, for the encouragement of the gospel ministry in said Waterbury: That in A. D. 1739-40 said town voted, (that said ministry lands should be sold, and the moneys raised thereby, should be devoted to the use of the ministry; and be divided equally among the several parishes in said Waterbury, that then were, or at any time afterwards should be; that said school lands, and most of said ministry lands, were sold by said. Waterbury, and the moneys loaned and the securities taken therefor, were to the use of the societies and school districts in said ancient town of Waterbury; and the interest arising thereon, had ever been divided annually to and among all the societies and school districts in said ancient town, until May, A. D. 1780; when said Watertown was incorporated. And thereupon they award, that said Waterbury pay to said Water-town, their proportion of the interest on said ministry and school moneys, from their incorporation, according to their list in A. D. 1779, which is £ and that said Waterbury in future pay annually to said Watertown in that proportion, until they shall agree to divide, etc.</p> <p>The defendants demur to the declaration. Sundry exceptions were taken — among the rest this — That it appeared these moneys were the property and belonged to the several ecclesiastical societies and school districts, and not to the town of Watertown.</p> <p>Judgment — That the declaration is insufficient.</p>

AotioN for the escape of one Bates. Not guilty plead. Issue to the jury • — ■ who find the following facts in a special verdict, viz. That the plaintiff recovered judgment against said Bates in the County Court, in September A. D. 1786 for £252 11s. 9d. debt and cost and had execution for said sum, dated the 4th of October A. D. 1786; upon which said Bates was committed to gaol on the 14th of November A. D. 1786; that upon the petition of said Bates, the County Court in…

<p>Action of account lies before a justice of tbe peace.</p>

<p>AotioN of trespass for interrupting the plaintiffs in their fishery in Connecticut river. Plea not guilty. The jury find the following facte in a special verdict, viz.</p> <p>That Connecticut river is a public navigable river, and abounds with fisb, salmon and sbad in tbe season of tbem. That in A. D. 1774 Stephen Roberts, Josiah Hurlbut, Timothy Forbs and William Roberts, the said Josiah and Timothy being two of the plaintiffs, with much expense and labor cleared a fish-place, opposite to the lands of Nehemiah, Moses, and Samuel Olmstead, adjoining to. Connecticut river, and lying upon the north line of the land of said Elisha Pitkin, one of the plaintiffs, and extending north up said river forty-four rods. That said Olmsteads gave a- lease to Gideon Spencer, John Kentfield, John Spencer, Timothy Forbs aforesaid, Joseph Forbs, Josiah Hurlbut aforesaid, Elijah Forbs, Aaron Burnham, Stephen Roberts, Benjamin Olmstead, Rhoderick Burnham, Samuel Hurlburt and James Pitkin; of said fish-place, who had formed themselves into a fish company; said Gideon Spencer, John Spencer, Timothy Forbs, Elijah Forbs, Josiah Hurlburt, Samuel Hurlburt and Aaron Burnham are the plaintiffs; with liberty to clear and draw seines on their land adjoining to said river, for the consideration of one-twentieth part of the fish, they should take: Which lease was sundry times renewed and continued down to the year 1788; that from A. D.-1774 to A. D. 1788 inclusive the said Hurlburts, etc. have cleared and occupied said fishing-place for taking of fish in the proper seasons; that in A. D. 1787 the aforesaid Spencers, Forbs, Hurlburts, Roberts and Bum-ham, with John Jones, Elisha Williams and James Pitkin, wex’e owners of the seine, boat and fishing apparatus employed at said place, and of all the right of fishing in said fish-place, which had ever been gained by said Stephen Burnham, etc. who first cleared the bed of the river opposite the lands of said Olmsteads — and were forbidden by said Olmsteads to fish any more at said place, opposite to their lands; that they agreed and sold their seine, boat and all their fishing apparatus to the said Spencers, Forbs, Hurlburts, Elias Roberts and Aaron Bumbam; who applied to said Elisha Pitkin, Esq. for liberty to draw their seine upon his land adjoining to said river, south of said Olmsteads’ land; which he granted, and also became one of their company; and the plaintiffs in the fall of the year A. D. 1787 cleared the bed of the river opposite said Elisha’s land and also of said Olmsteads and in the spring of the year A. D. 1788, the plaintiffs constantly fished in the river opposite said Elisha’s land, and also opposite the land of said Olmsteads and drew out their seine on said Elisha’s land; and in the fall of the year A. D. 1788 the defendants with design to prevent the plaintiffs from fishing in the bed of said river, opposite the lands of said Olmsteads, did set a hedge about two rods north of the north end of said Elisha’s land upon the land of said Olmsteads, and did extend said hedge and logs westward into the bed of said river six rods, below the common low-water mark, and ever since have continued said hedge and logs; that the same is an obstruction to taking of fish; and that the plaintiffs were thereby obstructed and prevented catching fish at said place in the year 1789, and the jury refer the question of law upon the facts aforesaid to the court, viz. Whether the defendants are guilty or not.</p> <p>Judgment of the court — The law is so upon the facts aforesaid that the defendants are guilty.</p>

<p>It is no cause of arresting judgment that the jury (have found a yerdict upon evidence, which, in the 'opinion of the court is insufficient.</p>

Error complaining of the judgment of the City Court in an action, brought by Lothrop and Daniel Coit, executors aforesaid v. Barker, upon a note given to said Joseph Coit, per writ dated 22d day of January and served the 25th of February 1790, and made returnable to the City Court to be holden in March, whereby it passed over the court in the month of February.

Writ oe Error to- reverse a judgment of the Superior Court, affirming a judgment of the City Court in Norwich, in denying an appeal in an action brought by said executors, against said Darker, on a note dated wherein said Barker promised to paid said Joseph Coit, deceased, the sum of £ lawful money and interest. Judgment of said City Court for the plaintiffs to.recover.

<p>In a joint information against two, they may plead severally not guilty, and one put himself on the court, and the other on the jury for trial.</p>

<p>Where a witness is discharged of his interest, and the party offering him is unable to produce it, parol evidence may be admitted to prove it.</p>

That said Thomas died in A. D. 1774, and his estate settled and distributed amongst his heirs; that her application to said court to have her dower set out, was not made until the 13th of April, A. D. 1789, long after! said Thomas’s estate had been distributed to his heirs, and after Samuel Eosdick one of the heirs had been divested of his part of the estate, by its being taken on execution for the payment of his debts, and after he had become a bankrupt: So that she is…

EeboR. Bishop sued Tillotson and others committee of the society of Chesterfield, for inserting his 'name in a certain rate-bill; declaring that he was a Baptist, and lodged a certificate of his exemption with the clerk of said Chesterfield, in March, A. D. 1186; that on the 19th of February, A. D. ITS 9, said society voted and laid a tax of one penny half penny on the pound, upon the list of A. D. 1788; and that the defendants inserted his name in said bill, with the sum…

<p>EeRoe to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in a prosecution of Baldwin and wife v. Oheesborough, for the maintenance of a bastard child, bom before her intermarriage with said Baldwin. To this complaint the defendant demurred and took the following exceptions, viz. 1st. It doth not appear in what county the child was born. 2d. That the prosecutors, since said complaint has been in court, by the permission of the court, have made a supplement to it, by inserting in it that she accused him in the time of her travail, and had been constant in her accusation. 3d. That the husband and wife could not join in a prosecution of this nature. The child was alleged to have been bom in A. D. 1786, and the complaint was dated in A. D. 1790. Judgment of the County Court was, that the complaint was sufficient, and upon examining the woman on oath they adjudged that said Chees-borough was the reputed father of said bastard; and made an order that he should stand charged with the maintenance of said child, with the mother, etc. during the pleasure of the court.</p> <p>Errors assigned — 1st. That said complaint is insufficient and ought so to have been adjudged. 2d. That the order of court is illegal, being for no certain term of time.</p> <p>Judgment — Manifest error; upon the last exception under the demurrer, and upon the last exception specially assigned for error.</p>

<p>Petition in chancery showing; that he bought a piece of land of said Spicer, in his lifetime, for £44, and gave him his note for it; at the same time it was agreed between said Spicer and him, that he should set up a small frame, for which he was to have £10, to be indorsed on said note; that the petitioner set up said building, which went into the estate of said Spicer; that said Spicer died before any indorsement was made of it upon his note; that his widow administered upon his estate, which was represented and found to be much insolvent; that she prevented his exhibiting his claim to the commissioners, by telling him she would indorse it; until their commission expired: and after her intermarriage with said Clark, they refused to indorse it, and recovered the whole note and interest, by judgment of the Superior Court.</p>

Action of ejectment for 122 acres of land. Issue to the jury- The plaintiff’s title was a deed from the administrator of Col. Gardner, dated the 10th of June A. D. 1788, given pursuant to an order from the Court of Probate. The defendant set up title under a deed from said Col. Gardner to his son Erederick Gardner, dated the 8th of November 1780, which the plaintiff attempted to avoid on the ground of its being fraudulent.

<p>Action for sending one Mary Laughton, a pauper, who had one child and was pregnant with another, to the town of Norwich; whereby said town was put to much cost, etc. in their support, etc. Special issue to the court.</p> <p>The facts were — Said Mary, before her intermarriage with said Laughton, was Mary Spicer, a legal inhabitant of the town of Norwich; that in A. D. 1785 she married said Laughton, an Irish foreigner, and moved with him to Wind-ham, and there resided until January A. D. 1789 and had said child born in Windham, and was likely to have another, and said Laughton went off and left her, not having gained a settlement in any town in this state or country. The said Mary and child being destitute and in want of support, were removed by said Windham to the town of Norwich.</p> <p>The court found the issue in favor of the defendants, and gave judgment — That the defendants recover their cost.</p>

Indebitatus Assumpsit for the rents and profits of five acres of land from March A. D. 1788 to March 1789, worth £30. Plea in bar — The Statute to Prevent Frauds and Perjuries.

<p>Where the consideration of a devise in a will is the maintenance of the widow, it is a lien upon the land.</p>

<p>An action of indebitatus assumpsit will not lie against an administrator for a debt due from tbe intestate.</p>

<p>ERROR to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action of assumpsit, Tully v. Bingham; declaring that on the 2d of August, A. D. 1784 he paid to the defendant £5 lawful money on account of an execution in the hands of Sheriff Whitmore, in favor of the treasurer of the state against him; and in consideration thereof he executed the following receipt, viz. Eeceived, Lyme August 2d, 1784, of Elias Tally, £5 lawful mouey, which is to he indorsed on an execution in favor of Treasurer Lawrence, in Sheriff Whitmore’s hands to collect, as by the sheriff’s letter to me, E. Bingham. And that the defendant, in and by virtue of said receipt, promised the plaintiff to indorse said sum of £5 on said execution, in a reasonable time; which he has never done, etc.</p> <p>The defendant admits his receiving said money and giving said receipt, hut says the plaintiff ought to be barred; for that he had good authority from said sheriff to do it, and that soon after, viz. on the 25 th of said August, he paid the money over to said Whitmore, upon said execution against the plaintiff, on which was then due about £20; and said sheriff received said money and gave his receipt for it, which he has always stood ready to deliver to the plaintiff.</p> <p>The plaintiff prayed oyer of said receipt, and recites it in his reply, which is as follows, viz. “ Eeceived of A. Stevens £5, Elias Tully £5, of P. Eiley £8, amounting in, all to £18, all by the hand of E. Bingham, except eighteen shillings deducted for his fees, fSTorwich, August 25, A. D. 1784; P. Whitmore sheriff.” And the plaintiff says that he has paid the whole of said execution and fees to Treasurer Lawrence, exclusive of said £5; and that said sheriff had no other demand upon him except said execution; which said sheriff returned non est with his fees indorsed upon it; ■without that that said Sheriff Whit-more received said sum of the defendant which he received of the plaintiff, all in manner and form etc.</p> <p>To which, reply the defendant demurred — And judgment of the County Court was, that the plaintiffs reply was sufficient.</p> <p>Error assigned — That the County Court ought to have adjudged said reply insufficient. The judgment of the County Court was reversed.</p>

Eeeor to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action of debt, Hancock v. Fuller; declaring on a bond given to Thomas Hancock, dated the 29th of January, A. D. 1761, conditioned to paj £282 19s. 7d. lawful money, by the 1st of June then next, with lawful interest; writ dated 18th of October A. D. 1786.

<p>Where it appears in a levy upon land, that the debtor chose an appraiser, the title is good although it doth not appear, in the officer’s return, that he made a previous demand of money, etc.</p>

<p>Interest allowed on a scire facias against an administrator ori. the ground of a special agreement.</p>

Aotiox of ejectment for five rods of land and a house. To which a special plea in bar was given. The plaintiff replied and affirmed new matter inconsistent with the title set up by the defendant, and traversed a part of the facts set forth by the defendant to make out his title, and concluded with a verification. The defendant demurred specially; and for cause assigned, that the plaintiff ought to have concluded to the country.

Stating that said report was not made and returned until two years after the expiration of their commission. Plea in abatement — That said Lothrop had not any claim allowed by said commissioners against said Botsford’s estate, nor did he exhibit any to them for allowance; although he exhibited a claim to a former set of commissioners and had it allowed; yet the report of those commissioners was set aside; and so said Lothrop was not a creditor that hath right to an appeal.

<p>Action of ejectment for certain lands. Plea no wrong, etc. Issue to the court.</p> <p>The title of the plaintiff was a deed from the defendant of the demanded premises, dated the day of A. D. 1765.</p> <p>The defendant produced a bond from the plaintiff of the same date, with a condition thereto annexed, that upon the defendant’s paying the plaintiff a certain note for the sum of £480 lawful money, with the interest, within three years from the date; he would reconvey said lands to the defendant; and that he had ever remained in possession of said lands, taking the whole profits to himself without account, and relied upon his long possession to bar the plaintiff of recovering.</p> <p>Judgment • — ■ That the defendant has done wrong, etc. and for the plaintiff to recover.</p>

<p>Tenants in common may join in an action for their common estate, or may each sue separately, for his part.</p> <p>That the plaintiff shall recover according to the right he proves.</p>

Petition in chancery; showing that Lownsbury was indebted to Plat, for which be gave bis note and a mortgage as collateral security; which deed was recorded. Plat was indebted to Hunter, and for a valuable consideration assigned said note to him at tbe same time delivered him said mortgage deed. Hunter assigned said note to tbe petitioner for a debt which be owed him and also delivered to him said mortgage.

<p>On a bond to indemnify tbe sheriff against tbe default of a deputy, forty shillings allowed for every suit against tbe sheriff on his account, besides the cost.</p>

<p>IkvoRmatioit for passing a counterfeit guinea. Not guilty to the jury.</p> <p>One Collins was offered as a witness and objected to for the following reasons: Bennet was a minor — had obtained said guinea in a simple manner and made no secret of its being a counterfeit; that the witness had made various attempts to get said guinea, on purpose as he declared, to have Bennet convicted in order to entitle himself to the premium of £10; that he finally succeeded, by giving Bennet $2 for it; that he immediately went and informed against Bennet, and offered himself as a witness to convict him.</p>

EeboR to reverse a judgment of the County Court on a petition brought by said Nichols against Sherman, etc. to compel them to contribute towards the maintenance of Joseph Hurd their wives’ father. The County Court gave judgment —-That they should contribute. Error — That daughters’ husbands are not compellable to contribute to the support of their wives’ parents. Judgment — Manifest error.

Action on note given by said Lemuel. Plea in bar ■— That on the 8th of January said Moorhouse’s estate was represented insolvent and commissioners appointed to examine the claims of the creditors and to make return in one year; that they have made a return of debts allowed, to the amount of £669; that the time is expired, and this claim was never exhibited nor allowed.

<p>Action of ejectment for land. . Issue to the jury. The plaintiff’s title was the levy of an execution against Benedict, who was former owner of the land, made on the day of June A. D. 1189.</p> <p>The defendant sets up title under a deed from said Benedict, dated in January A. D. 1189 to all his creditors, except one Greenleaf, the plaintiff being one, each to take in proportion to their debts; the plaintiff refused to have anything to do' with the deed, and attached the land and had it set off upon execution for his debt.</p> <p>The question in this case was — Whether Bennet’s deed of his lands to all his creditors, except one was good; or was a fraudulent conveyance and void.</p>

<p>Action of debt on judgment will not lie unless it appears the plaintiff cannot otherwise have the effect of his judgment.</p>

Action of ejectment, for sixteen acres of land. Issue to the jury. The plaintiff’s title was under a deed given by Elisha Marsh, to one of his sisters. The defendant offered parol evidence to prove that said Elisha delivered said deed to his sister upon certain conditions, which had not been performed; and so said deed was void.

<p>A scire facias by an. administrator of an officer, upon a judgment recovered on a bail bond, is not barred by the original debtor’s paying- the creditor, but be .shall recover for what the officer has paid and for his fees.</p>

<p>A defendant may not introduce himself as a witness to prove his own bill filed against an obligation upon the Statute of Usury.</p>

Eebob to reverse a judgment of the County Court, on a replevin bond. Case was — Davenport attached one Baxter’s horse for a debt. Baxter replevied him, and Buel gave bond upon the replevin. Davenport obtained judgment in the original suit against Baxter and took out execution and committed him to gaol. Baxter took the poor prisoner’s oath and went out of gaol. Davenport then brought a scire facias upon the replevin bond, against Buel; who plead the aforesaid matters in bar.

<p>Action of trespass on tbe case and not indebitatus assumpsit is tbe proper remedy where a pauper is illegally sent into a town.</p>

Reasons for appealing were — That one of the commissioners was a creditor to said estate and had a large sum allowed him; and that said commissioners had disallowed a jnst claim of said Barker, dne by note.

<p>Indebitatus assumpsit will not lie, after a decree of foreclosure, to recover money back that was paid by tbe mortgagor.</p>

<p>A note for W. India goods, generally not tbe same as a note for W. India rum and sugar particularly.</p> <p>A blank indorsement, till filled up is not evidence' of an assignment or warranty.</p>

Petition in chancery, showing that said Parkurst and one Gleason were jointly bound to the petitioner for £100 which had never been paid; that since the death of said Parkurst,' judgment and execution had been obtained against said Gleason, and returned non -est, and that he is become bankrupt; that said Parkurst left a plentiful estate, which has descended and come to his heirs the petitionees; that said Gleason was his executor, but never gave any bond for a faithful…

<p>The verdict must answer the issue or it will he good cause of arrest.</p>

<p>Where a private river divides between adjoining proprietors, that no division fence can be made in the line —it is a case omitted in the law, and must be ruled by principles of reason and common justice.</p>

Action for a nuisance; by means of the defendant’s raising his mill-dam and overflowing the plaintiff’s meadow, etc. The defendant plead in bar — A grant from the proprietors of Woodstock, to William Bartholomew, made in April, A. D. 1687, of the privilege of erecting a grist-mill and dam at this place; that a mill and dam were accordingly erected by him, and had ever since been kept up and used by him, and those claiming under him; that his whole right and interest, had…

<p>Error to reverse a judgment of the County Court in. a prosecution qm torn upon the statute against night walking; brought by Tracy against Larabee et al. in which he declares that on a certain night he had a quantity of pears taken from him and that he suspects that said Larabee et al. did the facts. Plea — Not guilty. Judgment — That they are guilty.</p> <p>Error assigned — That tbe complaint is insufficient and contains no direct charge against tbe defendants.</p> <p>Judgment — Manifest error. Dyer, J., dissented. Tbe mischief which the statute designed to remedy, was the difficulty in getting proof of disorders committed in the night season. The remedy it provides is to admit a well-grounded suspicion to come in the place of positive proof. The statute creates no new crime, nor marks out any new mode of process, for these were not needed; hut makes that to be evidence which without the statute could not be. In this case the defendants are not charged nor convicted of having committed any disorders — -but only of having been suspected by the plaintiff of having taken his pears.</p>

<p>A decree in chancery, without finding the facts that warrant it is erroneous.</p>

<p>Action of trespass, assault and battery. Plea — Not guilty, to the jury.</p> <p>The facts in the case were' — The defendants were the captain and lieutenant of a company of militia, who were marching in order through the country to a general training, under the command of the defendants; the abuse and assault was committed by some of tbe company, under such, circumstances, as that the defendants must have known it; and they took no measures to suppress it, or to detect and punish it, after it had happened.</p>

<p>Soire Eacias against Brown as agent, factor, etc. to Robert Williams.</p> <p>Plea in bar — That at the time of serving the original writ, and of leaving the copy with the defendant, the said Robert was not an absent absconding debtor; but was openly and publicly about and in company with said officer, when he served the said writ, and might have been taken. The plea was traversed and the issue put to the court.</p>

To reverse a decree of the County Court in cbancerv, upon the petition of said Broom and Platt brought against them; — showing that on the 27th of August, A. D. 1774, said Aaron Kellogg was indebted to- the petitioners, the sum of £1097 18s. Id. money of New York, and for security mortgaged to them a tract of land of the value of £1000; at the same time said Aaron delivered into the hands of Titus Hosmer, Esq. attorney to said Broom and Platt, notes in his favor against…

ActioN of the case for words — declaring that the defendant had said that John Merriman, the plaintiff, had swore falsely and had perjured himself, in a certain trial before the grand jury upon a prosecution against Samuel Hough for stealing some grain, by testifying that Hough was the thief and had stolen the grain, and that Hough was acquitted. Issue to the jury on the plea of not guilty.

<p>Where a writ is directed to an indifferent person to serve, the law requires that the name and reasons should he inserted hy the authority signing — and where the direction is to the sheriff, etc. or an indifferent person, in the disjunctive^ it will abate.-</p>

upon a bond given him, conditioned that said Cook who was in gaol upon a certain execution, should abide a true and faithful prisoner.

reverse , a judgment of a justice, in an action brought by said Heacock et al., as administrators aforesaid, against said Nichols et al., on a note. Plea in abatement — That Susannah Nichols is joint ad-ministratrix with tbe plaintiffs and ought to have been joined in tbe action.

<p>An action of escape will not lie before the City Court, although the escape was in the city and the sheriff lived in the city; if the judgment and execution, on which the prisoner was committed, was rendered and granted out of the city.</p>

<p>The sheriff in an action of escape may avail himself nf the court’snot having jurisdiction, which rendered the judgment, toy force of which, the prisoner .escaping, was imprisoned.</p>

Error complaining of the judgment of the County Court in granting a new¡ trial upon the petition of said Eitch against Ray, in a certain cause; which after the new trial was granted, was appealed into the Superior Court and now depending and undetermined. Errors assigned — 1st. That said County Court mistook the law in granting a new trial. 2d. That said Ray was not duly notified. To this writ of error, a' demurrer was given.

<p>An action will not lie upon a general promise of indemnity, upon a liability only in the surety to be sued or called upon, for the debt.'</p>

Eubob to reverse a judgment of a justice in an action by Page against Hitchcock and Merriman, declaring that the defendants promised to stop a certain suit which they had or was -about to commence against him on a note given by him to said Merriman; or that they would pay all the cost he should be put to thereby. That the defendants not regarding their promise, did prosecute said suit against him, whereby he was put to cost, which the defendants have never paid, damage £ .

Action of ejectment for land. The plaintiff’s title was a deed from his father George Nichols, dated 13th December A. D. 1784.

Sceie Eacias, against her as agent, factor, etc. to Kichard Spelman an absent absconding debtor. The defendant plead that at the time of leaving said copy in service of the original writ; said Kichard was not an absent absconding debtor, but was openly and publicly about and in company with said officer, and might have been taken.

<p>The mortgagor is to be considered as tenant at will to mortgagee.</p>

<p>Petition in chancery — showing that in A. D. 1773 the petitioners and said JBenjamin Douglass were jointly bound with and for John Lothrop in the sum of £350 to Mr. Pay, it being the proper debt of said Lothrop; that said Kay recovered a judgment against them in A. D. 1775, for the sum of £ on said obligation, which they had since been obliged to pay; that said Lothrop was dead and totally insolvent, and nothing could be recovered from his estate; that said Douglass being a joint bondsman with them for said Lothrop, took upon him the risk of one-third of said debt with the petitioners; and as they had paid the whole, his administrator was liable to pay to them out of his estate, his proportion of said debt; further stating that the time limited for exhibiting claims against said Douglass’s estate expired long before their legal claim against it accrued, which was not till after the death of the said John Lothrop — praying for relief,, etc.</p> <p>Plea in abatement — That the respondent had long since fully administered on said Douglass’s estate, closed his accounts with the Court of Probate, and hath not any of the estate of .said deceased in his hands; and sets forth a quietus, from the judge. _</p> <p>_ Judgment — That the plea in abatement is insufficient.</p>

Action on note dated in A. D. 1776; judgment was given for the plaintiff last court upon a demurrer, and continued to this court to be heard in damages: The defendant now exhibits his motion in writing, that he may have the benefit of the statute respecting absentees during the war, in the assessment of the damages; alleging, that the plaintiff had been absent during that period and that he could not get to him to pay said debt.

EeboR to reverse a judgment of the County Court on a complaint of said Mary against said Smith, upon the statute to recover maintenance for a. bastard- child, brought before John McCoy, Esq. justice of the peace, belonging to Greenwich ;— both the parties belonged to Stamford, and said justice went into Stamford, and there took cognizance of said cause, and recognized said Smith to appear before the County Court-and answer to said complaint.

Action on book demanding £200; a copy was left with of in Fairfield county, as agent, factor and trustee to said Lloyd.

Action of trover for a horse valued at £22 lawful money, and the demand in damages £30. Verdict in the County Court for the plaintiff, and £6 damages; the defendant ap'-pealed. The plaintiff plead in abatement of the appeal, that the horse was not worth £20.

Actiou on bond. The defendant on the second day of the sitting of the County Court filed his bill, complaining, that a sum was included in and secured by said bond for loan and forbearance over tlie lawful interest, at 6 per cent, etc. and praying that the court would proceed as a court of chancery to inquire into the facts, and.to render judgment agreeable to .the law in.such case provided; -this cause came on to trial before this court -upon-said bill, said Livingston…

<p>An officer who collects money on an execution, is not obliged to carry it to the creditor, and no promise arises in such case, to pay, until a demand is made.</p> <p>The Statute of Limitation is no bar to an action against an officer, who has received the money upon an execution.</p>

<p>A note obtained by fraud and imposition may be avoided by pleading the fraud.</p>

<p>Depositions admissible in qui tarn prosecutions.</p> <p>Depositions taken out of the state within twenty miles of the adverse party, notice must be given.</p>

<p>EbeoR to reverse a decree in chancery of the County Court, in a petition John Foot v. Timothy Foot; alleging that Timothy prosecuted him for a forgery; that the jury on Saturday brought in their verdict, that he was guilty, which was recorded by the court; that a motion in arrest was made and exhibited to the court, and the cause laid over to> the Tuesday following; that said Timothy under the cloak of fraternal love and tenderness, advised the petitioner to settle the matter, and save himself and family from the disgraceful punishment of the pillory, and offered that he would settle for a small matter; that he went home and advised with his family and friends, who in tears, advised him to settle by all means. And that he returned to court on Tuesday, fully determined to settle with his brother at all events; when to his great surprise his brother asked him the enormous sum of £60 lawful money, and threatened to prosecute him with rigor, unless he would settle and give him this sum. The petitioner being ignorant of said motion in arrest, did settle and- gave said Timothy £50 lawful money, and secured it by seven pound notes, when in fact said verdict would have been arrested, and said Timothy would finally have recovered nothing against him in said prosecution: Wherefore fie prays the court to inquire into the facts, and order and decree said notes to be given up.</p> <p>Plea in abatement — That the petition contains no sufficient grounds for chancery to interpose.</p> <p>Judgment ■ — ■ Plea sufficient.</p> <p>Error assigned — That said plea ought to have been judged insufficient.</p>

Actiou of assumpsit, declaring that in A. D. 1785 the said George had in his store a quantity of flour, which had been there so long, that he had forgot to whom it belonged; that he sold it for £14 4s. lawful money and delivered the money to the defendants, who were a committee of a school district in Sharon, the interest to be applied to the support of schooling in said district; that the defendants in and by a certain writing bound themselves to the said George, that in…

<p>PROsecution qui twin for a private assault, brought upon the statute. Issue to the jury.</p>

PetitioN for a new trial in an action on a note brought by them against said Nicbols, in which he plead a special plea in bar; to wbich the plaintiffs made an insufficient reply; which was demurred to; and judgment — That the reply was insufficient. Alleging that they had misplead; and that they ought to have traversed the plea in bar, as it was not true, nor could the defendant have proved it.

<p>The bondsman for the plaintiff to appeal his cause, is liable for the cost the defendant recovers in the action.</p>

<p>In taking of depositions, although the adverse party lives more than twenty miles from the place of caption, if he has a known attorney, living within, twenty miles he must be notified.</p>

<p>EkeoR, to reverse a judgment of the County Court in a prosecution for maintenance of a pair' of twins.</p> <p>Defendant plead in bar — Tbat on the 10th of March, the plaintiff agreed with John Adams, to accept £36 lawful money in full satisfaction, for the maintenance of the child with which she was then pregnant; and to discharge him and all other persons therefrom; and the said Adams paid the said Sila £36 lawful money, which she accepted; and thereupon, and in consideration thereof she made and executed the following discharge in writing, viz. Know all men by these presents, that I Sila Spalding have this day received by the hand of John Adams £36, for and on account of the maintenance' and support of a child of which I am now pregnant, in consideration whereof, I do acquit, exonerate, and fully and absolutely discharge the father of said child, of which I am now pregnant, of any demands I have against him 3 and any other person, shall have right to plead this discharge, who shall be prosecuted in my name, for or on account of said child: Hated, March 10th, A. H. 1Y91, Sila Spalding. 'Whereby the defendant is fully and absolutely discharged from all demands of the plaintiff on account of said child.</p> <p>Plaintiff replied — That said discharge was obtained before said children were born, and before she knew she was pregnant with more than one child; when in fact she was pregnant with two children who have since been born of her body alive; and thereupon says she ought not to be barred without that, that she received of said Adams, said £36 in full satisfaction of all demands, she could, or might have upon him,, and every other person on account of her pregnancy; and without that, that she executed said discharge to and for the use of said Adams, and every other person who- might be prosecuted on that account.</p> <p>The defendant affirmed over his plea, and joined issue to the court. The court found the issue in favor of the defendant, and gave judgment for his cost.</p> <p>Errors assigned — That the plea in bar is insufficient, however the issue in fact might be; for that it is a general discharge of every body, and not given to> the defendant: The minds of the parties did not meet in giving and receiving it; and not being plead by way of accord and satisfaction but as a discharge, it extends to one child only; whereas the suit is for maintenance of two.</p>

Eeeob to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action brought by the plaintiff - against said committee; declaring, that he was a sober dissenter from the established church in the first society in Windham, and belonged to a society of congregationalists in said society; that he attended public worship there, and contributed his proportion towards its support; and procured and lodged a certificate with the clerk of said first society, more than three years since, of…

Verdict for the plaintiffs last court, and £13 damages, with which the plaintiffs were dissatisfied; and moved in arrest of judgment, that Ebenezer Backus one of the jurors who tried said cause, was and is father to Ebenezer Backus of said Norwich, who is one of tbe plaintiffs. Tbe fact was admitted by tbe defendant; yet be says, that said connection was in tbe knowledge of tbe plaintiffs wben tbe jury were impaneled, and they made no objection to said jurymen.

<p>ActxoN of waste, declaring, that the plaintiff was seized of tbe reversion of a certain tract of land in fee, described in the declaration, of which the defendants were tenants in dower in right of the wife, for her life; that she had cut and destroyed the timber and wood, standing upon said land, and committed waste to the disinheriting and damage of the plaintiff, etc.</p> <p>Plea — ’Not guilty. Issue to the jury. The jury found for the plaintiff, and £20 damages.</p> <p>Motion in arrest — That the declaration is insufficient, not being maintainable against tenant in dower.</p> <p>Judgment — That the motion is insufficient, and for the plaintiff to recover. This point was decided at Fairfield, August A. D. 1772, upon a demurrer to the declaration in an action of waste, brought against tenant for life.</p>

<p>ActioN of ejectment for a tract of land. Plea not guilty. Issue to tbe jury.</p>

Weit oe Error, complaining of a judgment of si justice upon a note for £20, entered upon tbe confession of said Curtice, in favor of said Scovel, in words following, viz. September 11th.

<p>Witnesses interested in the question are not admitted to testify.</p>

deceased, to his six sons-in-law and their heirs. The case was as follows, viz. William Wheeler, Sr. was seized of said premises, and on the 13th of August A. D. 1747 made his will and devised as follows, viz. I give and bequeath to my grandson William Wheeler the farm I now live on, with the buildings, bounded as follows, viz. [bounds it out] to him my said grandson, his heirs and assigns forever; upon condition he pays to my granddaughter Hannah Wheeler £200 old tenor…

<p>Eekoe to reverse a judgment of tlie Superior Court Rolden at ISTew London on the fourth Tuesday of September A. D. 1791, affirming the decree of a Court of Probate at ISTew London, holden on the 7th day of Eebruary 1791. Judgment of the Superior Court reversed, and the reasons for reversal, and the state of the case, as follows.</p>

Action of trespass on land brought before a justice. A plea of title was put in by the defendant, and the capse came by appeal to this court. The defendant moved to alter his plea, to justify as to part and to plead not guilty as to part.

<p>EbboR to reverse a judgment of tlie County Court in an action of assumpsit Nobles v. Cates et al. for tbe service of bis servant, demanding £8. Plea in abatement — That it was an attachment and neither the person or estate of one of the defendants had been attached. Judgment — Plea overruled.</p> <p>Defendants plead nonassumpsit. Issue to the court. The evidence was, that the defendants jointly agreed to give the plaintiff £8 for the service of his servant; that one of them gave his note for that sum to the plaintiff, which he accepted, and has since sued and recovered judgment upon it, but has got no satisfaction the debtor being a bankrupt — and this action is brought upon the original parol contract against both.</p> <p>The defendants demurred to the evidence; and the plaintiff joined in the demurrer. The County Court gave judgment that the defendants did assume and promise, and for the plaintiff to recover.</p> <p>General errors assigned.</p>

<p>Ereor to reverse a judgment of the County Court in a prosecution for maintenance of a bastard child, brought by Norton against Penfield — the complaint did not state that the child was born. Penfield was defaulted; and the court proceeded and made up judgment against him, without examining the mother, as to who the father of the child was, that he should pay to the mother three shillings per week for four years, for its support in ease it lived, but it appearing to the court that said child was dead they gave judgment that the plaintiff recover £ being the funeral charges of said child and cost.</p> <p>Errors assigned —• 1st. That there was no direct averment in the complaint that the child was ever born. 2d. The mother was not examined touching who the father was. 3d. The child being dead, nothing ought to have been allowed for the fnneral charges.</p>

<p>In an action of slander, evidence that there was such a report before the defendant spoke the words, not admissible. No cause of arrest that some of the words laid, are not actionable.</p>

<p>Ebeor to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action of debt by book, brought by said administrator against said Brattle; to which action said Brattle plead in bar, that upon the death of said Parsons his estate was represented insolvent, and commissioners were appointed to examine and allow the claims of the creditors; that said Parsons was indebted to him at his decease by note, the sum of £40 which he exhibited to said commissioners for allowance; that at the same time he was indebted to said Parsons by book, the -sum now in suit; that the commissioners offset said book-debt against said noto, and reported only the balance due on said note after deducting said book-debt.</p> <p>To which a special demurrer was given — 1st. That said commissioners had no right by law to make such offset. 2d. It does not appear, that the commissioners examined the hooks or that said administrator was present. 3d. Said note could be contested at common law by tbe administrator notwithstanding its being allowed by tbe commissioners, and so nonconstat, that anythmg is due'on said note.</p>

Petition in chancery; showing, that Daniel Grey a bankrupt, assigned to the petitioners an execution, in his favor against Joseph Webb of Wethersfield, .for the sum of £75 7s. lOd. lawful money debt and cost, dated the 6th of Eebruary A. D. 1788, in payment of a debt said Grey owed them; that they delivered said execution to said Warner, constable of said Wethersfield, who received it to levy and collect, and informed him that said execution was assigned to them, and that…

<p>Tlie seller of a public security runs tlie- risk of its being true and genuine, especially if lie affirms it to be such.</p>

Action on bond, conditioned, that said Scot, who was in prison upon an execution in favor of Samuel Wales, for £32 18s. lOd. lawful money, should abide a true and faithful prisoner; alleging a breach, that he made his escape from prison on the 11th of November inst. per writ dated 18th of November A. D. 1791.

Sciee Facias against her as factor and debtor to Richard Spelman, an absconding debtor. Plea — That she was not nor is factor or debtor to said Richard.

<p>The value of public securities are to be estimated at the time when payable, if no time is set, then they are dire presently and that is the time to estimate them.</p>

ActioN of the case for a nuisance; declaring, that Poqua-nock river is a large navigable river, or arm of the sea, for four miles northward to where the post road crosses the same, and to The plaintiff’s dwelling-house and farm in said Strat-ford, where the plaintiff now and for more than thirty years last passed hath dwelt; which forms a peninsula, around which the two branches, constituting said river meet, where the plaintiff now and for more than thirty years last…

<p>ActioN of trover for a horse, ox, and lteifer, which were lost in A. D. 1779, and by finding liad come into the hands of the defendant, and by him converted in January A. D. 1787, to his own use; per writ dated the 2d of April, A. D. 1790.</p> <p>Plea in bar — That on the 14th of July, in A. D. 1779, the defendant with others, with force and arms broke and entered the plaintiff’s close, and took and carried away said horse, ox and heifer, mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration, and did dispose of them to his own use; that the taking of said creatures was by force and arms and is the same finding and converting mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration, and is more than three years from the date and impetration of the plaintiff’s writ; and by the Statute of Limitation, respecting actions of trespass the plaintiff is barred. And as to any other conversion of said horse, ox and heifer, the defendant says he is not guilty. The plaintiff demurred to the defendant’s plea in bar.</p>

PetitioN in chancery; showing, that on the 1st of May, A. D. 1776, they sold the petitionees about thirty acres of land, and described it, and gave a bond to procure a title to said land by the 1st of April, A. D. 1778, the title being in The-ophilus Beach of New York; that said Halls gave them their note for £51 3s. 9d. the purchase money, payable on the 1st of January A. D. 1778, with the interest; that said Halls entered immediately into the possession of said land, and…

Petition in chancery, alleging that on the 20th day of February A. D. 1782, the petitioner with William Maltbee Betts, of Norwalk in tbe county of Fairfield, and Walter Seamons, Titns Conklin, Benjamin Wood, Benjamin Titus, Timothy Titus, Ebenezer S. Platt, all now of tbe state of New York, and Samuel Allin of tbe state of Vermont; purchased for then joint benefit of Elijah Abel, Esq. the sloop Shuldum, at the price of £766 13s. 4d. money of New York, for which they gave…

<p>ActxoN on note. The defendant filed his bill against the note, on the statute, complaining that it was usurious and oppressive, and moved to bo admitted to his oath to- prove his bill.</p>

AotioN on note dated the 14th of August 1783, for £60 payable in thirty-six months with the interest annually.

<p>Interest o¡n the debt, suspended) by an audita querela, is not' recoverable on the bond given for prosecution of the audita, etc.</p>

<p>AotioN of indebitatus assumpsit, declaring that on tbe 1st of February A. D. 1786 tbe defendant was indebted to tbe plaintiff £45 for money before that time bad and received for tbe plaintiff’s use, viz. moneys received of Ard Welton, wbicb was in part pay for a farm sold to said Welton in October A. D. 1785 and being so indebted, etc. assumed and promised, etc. Demurrer to tbe declaration.</p> <p>Tbe exception was — That tbe defendant’s receiving tbe money of Welton, did not create an indebtedness to tbe plaintiff, without a special request to pay it, and a refusal or a misapplication of tbe money.</p>

declaring, that he had an execution in favor of David Buel, against Lewis Delavergne, for £58, dated 27tb April, A. D. 1790, which lie levied on eight oxen belonging to said De-lavergne, and posted them, etc. that the defendants received said oxen to keep and redeliver on the 15th of June, A. D. 1790, as by their receipt in writing by them executed ready to be produced in court appears.

Two questions arise on this defense — 1st. Whether on these pleadings it appears that no oxen in fact were taken from the debtor, or delivered to or received by the defendants ; and if the contrary appears, then 2d. Whether the residue of the defense is sufficient or not.

<p>A Wank indorsement can extend to no note but that on which it . is made — that it extends only to a power to collect and convert the money, and that the same is due.</p>

Actioh on note, dated 24th of March, A. D. 1789, wherein the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff £80 in soldiers’ notes, in one year from the date; and that on the 26th of March, A. P. 1790, the defendant wrote at the bottom of said note, this may certify, that I will pay the interest of the above note, as by said note, etc. Demurrer to the declaration; which was closed last court and continued to this, and now the defendant moved to alter his plea from a general to a…

ErkoR to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action brought by Meacham against Strong on hook describing him to be of Hartford in the county of Windsor in the state of Vermont, which action was continued to April County Court A. I). 1791, when said court gave judgment against him upon his default of appearing, and for the plaintiff to recover £20 debt and Ms cost, and that execution issue for the same accordingly; that on the 10th of October A. D. 1791 said Meacham.…

<p>A bond taken by a justice in a criminal prosecution, conditioned that the defendant shall appear, answer, and abide judgment, is a good bond.</p>

<p>Error to reverse a judgment of tbe County Court, in an action brought by Champion against Wadsworth et al. upon a note dated the 20th of April, A. I). 1789, wherein the defendants jointly and severally promised the plaintiff to pay to him £3,609 14s. 7d. lawful money, within thirteen months from the date, with the lawful interest; demanding £5,000. Per writ dated 17th of June, A. 1). 1790.</p> <p>Plea in bar — That at the time of giving the note on which, etc. it was corruptly agreed between the plaintiff and defendants, that the plaintiff should lend to the defendants upon the application, and for the use of said Chaplin, the following public securities for the term of thirteen months, viz. A certificate of the United States, dated register’s office, 10th of August A. 1). 1787, certifying a balance due from the United States to Henry Champion the sum of $8,721 and seventy-one ninetieths, bearing interest at 6 per cent, from the 1st of July, A. D. 1780, and. signed Joseph Nurse register, on which no interest had been paid. Also sixteen loan office certificates for $400 each, numbered from 3,882 to 3,397, inclusive; and one loan office certificate for $200, No. 4,252, all'dated March the 30th A. D. 1778, signed Samuel Ililligas, and countersigned John Lawrence, commissioner, all payable to Henry Champion, with interest at 6 per cent, and on which no interest had been drawn since the 31st of December A. D. 1782.</p> <p>All which securities were then worth in lawful money no more than £1,105 8s. Id., and that in consideration of the loan and forbearance of the aforesaid securities for the term of thirteen months aforesaid, the defendants should execute the note on which, etc. for £3,609 14s. 7d. lawful money on interest from the date thereof, and also should execute one other note for the sum of £29 6s. 4d. lawful money, payable in thirteen months with interest, and that in. case the defendants should return at the expiration of said thirteen months and deliver to the plaintiff the same securities and certificates, without having drawn any interest upon them or either of them, the plaintiff would accept them in full payment of the note on which, etc. but on failure of their delivering said certificates the plaintiff to be holden to take nothing but specié on said notes; and that in pursuance of said corrupt agreement, the plaintiff loaned to said Chaplin said public securities for the term of thirteen months, and the defendants executed to the plaintiff the note on winch, etc. and also a note for £29 6s. 4d., payable in thirteen months with interest, and for no other cause or consideration.</p> <p>And the plaintiff made and executed to the defendants an agreement in writing, wherein and whereby he agreed and engaged, that if by the day the aforesaid note became due, the defendants should redeliver or pay to him certificates of the same description in all respects, and without any interest drawn on them more than had been upon these; that he would accept them in payment of said note; but on failure of paying said certificates to be holden to take nothing but specie on said note; and that by said corrupt agreement there was and is in fact taken, reserved and secured in and by the note on which the sum of £2,698 5s. 6d. lawful money over and above the lawful interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum ^for the loan of said securities for the term of thirteen months and for no other cause or consideration, and by the statute of this state said note is void.</p> <p>The plaintiff demurred to the'plea in bar. Judgment of the County Court — That the plea in bar was insufficient.</p> <p>The defendants laid in a written motion to be heard in damages upon the chancery of said note; which motion said County Court refused to grant and gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover £4,033 Us. 6d. lawful money and cost.</p> <p>The defendants then moved said court that they might be allowed to appeal said cause to the Superior Court, and tendered sufficient bonds to prosecute said appeal, and said County Court adjudged that no appeal lay in said cause.</p> <p>Errors assigned • — ■ 1st. That said plea in bar was sufficient and ought to have been so adjudged. 2d. In refusing to hear the parties in damages upon the chancery of said note. 3d. In judging that no appeal lay in said cause.</p> <p>Judgment of this court — That there is nothing erroneous in the judgment complained of. All the questions determined by the County Court and complained of in the writ of error, depend upon the nature and true construction of the original contract between the parties, to be collected from the writings disclosed upon the record: and by them it dearly appears to have been a sale of those securities at a certain stipulated price, or to return the securities at the end of thirteen months, at the option of the defendant; they chose not to return them, consequently are bound to pay the stipulated sum secured by the note, which is much less than the nominal value and excludes every idea of usury.</p> <p>The note is for the payment of money only and, no payments are claimed to have been made upon it, there is no room for a hearing upon the chancery of said note, the parties having therein agreed the sum. Before the plea was entered by the defendant in error he suggested that said note was vouched by two witnesses and would so appear, had it been brought up in the writ of error, as it ought to have been, and moved for a certiorari to the clerk of the County Court to certify said note — which being done, it appeared to be vouched by two witnesses.</p>

AotioN of indebitatus assumpsit for money paid and advanced to tbe defendants. Plea — Nonassumpsit. Issue to tbe jury.

<p>Appead from probate. Hide represented said estate insolvent and had commissioners appointed, to whom he exhibited a debt which he claimed against said estate, and the’ commissioners adjusted not only the debt and credit between said Hide and tbe estate to the time of said Stoughton’s death, but also offset against his debt moneys received by him as administrator for debts and rents, which reduced his debt to about £40; Hide excepted to the return of the commissioners before the Court of Probate on that account, and the judge set aside the report of the commissioners; Staniford et al appeal to this court.</p>

<p>AotioN of indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received generally. Plea •— Nonassumpsit. Issue to the jury.</p> <p>The plaintiff offered to give in evidence certain mistakes made in a settlement between the treasurer of the state and the defendant, upon which receipts were passed - — which was objected to, as it would be a surprise upon the defendant.</p>

<p>ActioN of the case, for sending into Somers Robert Tud-man, a pauper, with his wife and family without law and right, in June, A. D. 1790.</p> <p>Plea —'Not guilty. Issue to the court.</p> <p>The case was — Tudman was a foreigner, he married a wife in Stafford, and went and lived in Somers; in A. D. 17.88, he was warned out; he then removed to Barhhamstead, and dwelt there ten months, and then was removed by order of the civil authority and selectmen to Somers, and had been chargeable to Somers; for which they demand £34.</p>

<p>A certificated pauper removing and residing in tlie town for which said certificate is given, more than one year without lodging it with the town clerk, gains a settlement by commorancy.</p>

<p>Action on a note for £20,000 dated the 11th of March, 1780.</p> <p>Plea in bar — That said note hath conditions annexed to it, viz. that if the within-named Moor, be molested of said land he holds a deed of from said Sessions and Stems, in Union, dated March 11th, A. D. 1780, then Sessions and Stems to bear two-thirds of the cost; if he is never molested, then this note to be void, and that the plaintiff hath not been legally molested in the enjoyment of the lands contained in their deed.</p> <p>The plaintiff replied — That he had been molested in the enjoyment of two pieces of land in' said deed, in a twenty-acre, and a forty-acre piece, of the value of £200, and had been deprived of them.</p> <p>The defendants rejoined — ’That the plaintiff and the defendants purchased of William Bnrnet Brown, all the land lie owned in Union, being about 2,000 acres, said two pieces mentioned in the plaintiff’s reply having before been sold for the payment of taxes; did not pass from said Brown by his deed to them dated September A. D. 1779; and to make partition among themselves, the defendants by deed dated the 11th of March, A. D. 1780, did give, grant, and quitclaim to said Moor, all such right, title and interest or demand, that they had in and to six certain lots of land, which they said Moor, Sessions and Sterns lately purchased of William B. Brown, lying in said Union, and containing about 500 acres, and are lots Ro. 1, 2, 3, 15, and 26, called hatchet lot, and ninety acres bought of Stoughton, to have and to hold said quit-claimed premises; and covenanted that they were well seized of the premises, as a good indefeasible estate in fee-simple; and that they had good right to sell the same as aforesaid, and that the same was free and clear of all incum-brances; and thereupon say that the plaintiff ought to be barred without that, that the plaintiff has been legally molested in the enjoyment of* said lands.</p> <p>Plaintiff affirmed his reply. Issue to the court.</p> <p>Judgment — -That the plaintiff hath not been molested in the enjoyment of said land, as the plaintiff in his sun-rejoinder hath alleged. The covenants in the deed, are to be construed to extend only to the right, title and interest, the defendants had in the land.</p>

Action of ejectment. Plea — Not guilty. Issue to the court. The plaintiff’s title was a deed from Libret, who had an execution against said Thompson, which was levied upon this land, and -appraised off in satisfaction of it; Thompson claimed that 'the levy of said execution was irregular and continued in possession holding and claiming said land against said levy, at the time when said deed was executed to the plaintiff.

<p>The courts in this state have not jurisdiction to try a theft laid to have been committed in another state.</p> <p>In a prosecution for theft the jury must find the value of the goods stolen. '</p>

<p>Under the plea of nonassumpsit to a note, full payment cannot be given in evidence.</p> <p>A party may have liberty to alter his plea after the evidence is begun to the jury.</p>

<p>EeROR to reverse a judgment of a justice, in a gwi tarn prosecution for a breach of tbe peace, brought by Ooleman against them; tbe writ was directed to either of tbe constables of tbe town of Lebanon in Windham county; Kipple was described of said Lebanon, Galkins was described to be of Pozrah in ISTew London county.</p> <p>Tbe officer’s return of service was — 'Lebanon, Windham county, August 29th A. D. 1791, I then for want of estate, arrested the body of the within Thomas Kippte, jr. read said writ in his hearing and have taken sufficient bonds for his appearance at court. O. Wattles, constable. And on the same 29th day of August for want of estate, I arrested the body of the within named Durlcee Calkins, and have taken sufficient bonds for his appearance at court, etc. O. Wattles.</p> <p>To which process the defendants plead in abatement, that said process had been no otherwise served on said Calkins, than by said Wattles, constable of Lebanon attaching his body and reading it in Ms hearing, wHch attaching and reading aforesaid was in said.Bozrah and out of the official precincts of said constable.</p> <p>The justice judged said plea to be insufficient; and upon the plea of not guilty the defendants were found guilty, and judgment for the plaintiff to recover £2 damages and cost.</p> <p>Error assigned — That said justice ought to have judged' said plea in abatement sufficient.</p>

<p>Actiost of trover for some hark, brought before a justice, demanding £2 lawful money damages.</p>

Action of trespass brought before a justice for throwing down tbe plaintiff’s fence, carrying away bis rails, and eating up bis grass; demanding forty shillings damage. Tbe defendant before tbe justice plead — That true it was be was guilty of doing tbe trespass complained of in tbe plaintiff’s declaration, but bad good right to do it; for that be was tbe proprietor and legal owner of tbe land whereon said trespass was said to have been committed.

Action of ejectment for fifty acres of land in Plainfield. Plea — No wrong or disseisin. Issue to the jury. The plaintiffs derived their title from old Mr. Winthrop who held under a grant from the proprietors.

<p>The court will give interest upon a note not expressed to be on interest, under certain circumstances where equity requires it.</p>

<p>Where a man dies in this sta te leaving an interest and an executor, and also real property lying in another state, the administration account respecting the property there cannot be allowed by the judge of probate here, against the interest in this state.</p>

Action of debt on bond for £200 dated the 30th of April T789.

<p>EeeoR to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action brought by Smith and wife against Lamb, declaring that David Lamb on the 6th of July A. D. 1771, made his will and gave to his two sons John and the said Lemuel, all Ms estate after tie decease or second marriage of iis wife, to be divided as follows, viz. etc. to Betsey, tie wife of said Siarp Smith., a legacy as follows, Item. I give and bequeath, to my negro woman Betsey, her freedom in six months after my decease. I also give to said negro woman Betsey, £12 lawful money, to be put to interest under tie ’care of tie Bev. A. Bosseter and to be by him dealt out to said Betsey’s use, at iis discretion, as her circumstances shall require, to be paid equally by my sons Lemuel and Join Lamb, within one year after my decease. Tie testator died in October A. D. TTYl and said will has been duly proved and approved, and tie defendant accepted of said estate given him by tie will aforesaid, which was worth £800 lawful money, and thereupon he became liable to pay one-half of said legacy given to said Betsey in said will and being so liable assumed and promised to pay said half being £6 and tie interest thereon, from and after one year from tie death of tie testator, etc.</p> <p>To this declaration a general demurrer was given, and tie County Court gave judgment that tie declaration was sufficient and for tie plaintiffs to recover tie sum of £12 19s. 6d. damages and cost.</p> <p>Errors assigned — 1st. That tie declaration was insufficient. 2d. That said court gave too great a sum in damages.</p>

ActioN of the case for supporting one Hannah Tracy and her children, the wife of Samuel Tracy, whom the town of Franklin, on the 15th of December A. D. 1791 caused to be transported to said town of Lisbon, demanding £25 damages. Plea- — -Not guilty. Issue to the court. The state of the case was —• Said Samuel Tracy was born in that part of the ancient town of Norwich, which now was Franklin.

<p>Tbe denial of tbe Co-urt of Probate to grant administration de bonis non, disaffirmed.</p>

<p>In an action brought by an administrator on an insolvent estate on a note, against a creditor to said estate by bools, the court will offset the sum found by the commissioners to be due on book against the note, and give judgment for the remainder.</p>

<p>Error to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in a scire facias, brought by Miller v. Howard; declaring, that the plaintiff prayed out a writ of attachment against Benjamin Howard, Jr. of Providence, in the state of Rhode Island, dated the 27th day of March, A. D. 1788, returnable before the County Court holden at Middletown, in Middlesex county, on the second Tuesday of November A. D. 1788; by which the body of the said Benjamin, Jr. was attached, and said Benjamin Howard gave bond in the sum of £60 to the sheriff, to be paid upon condition, that said Benjamin, Jr. should fail to appear before said County Court and answer to said suit; that said writ was duly returned, and said action was continued to the County Court holden at Haddam in said county on the first Tuesday of April, A. D. 1789; when and where said Benjamin, Jr. made default of appearing, and judgment was entered against him ini said action; for the plaintiff to recover the sum of £16 7s. debt and cost; that execution was taken out on said judgment for the sums contained therein, dated the 20th of April, A. D. 1789, and delivered'to a proper officer to'serve, etc.'who made return thereof with his indorsement thereon, dated the 16th of June, A. D. 1789; that he had made diligent search within his precincts, but could find neither person nor estate whereon to levy said execution, etc. and that said judgment and said bond remained unsatisfied and unpaid: Further alleging that said Benjamin, Jr. brought a petition for a new trial in said cause to the County Court holden at said Middletown on the second Tuesday of November A. D. 1789; which was continued by the procurement of said Benjamin Howard, to the adjourned court in December A. D. 1790, when it was negatived; praying for a remedy against the bail; writ dated the 1st day of March, A. D. 1791.</p> <p>Plea in abatement' — That a scire facias did not lie on a sheriff’s bail bond. Judgment — Plea insufficient.</p> <p>The defendant then plead in bar — That more than twelve months had elapsed, from the time of rendering final judgment in said action, to the date and impetration of the plaintiff’s scire facias, and by the statute entitled an act concerning bail in civil and criminal causes, the plaintiff was barred. Demurrer to the plea.</p> <p>Judgment of the County Court — That the defendant’s plea was insufficient.</p> <p>Errors assigned —• 1st. That a scire facias doth not lie on a sheriff’s bail bond. 2d. That the County Court ought to have adjudged said plea in bar sufficient, and given judgment for the defendant to have recovered his cost.</p>

AotioN for the escape of Gordon Whitmore from gaol, who was in prison upon an execution for £57 14s. 4d. debt and £24 4s. cost. The defendant plead that he had made full payment of tbe execution before the date and impetration of the plaintiff’s writ. Issue to'the jury. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff and £79 16s. 5d. damages.

Eeeoe to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action brought by said Russel, administrator aforesaid, against said Benjamin and Austin, 'executors aforesaid, upon a note given by said Gideon to said Samuel for £16 13s. lawful money, payable on demand with interest, dated the 1st of June A. D. 1774. Demanding £30.

ActioN of defamation. Tbe declaration contained several counts for several sets of words, some of wbicb were sufficient and some were insufficient. Tbe defendant plead not guilty generally to tbe whole. Issue to tbe jury. Tbe jury found tbe defendant guilty and gave damages.

Action of account for sundry articles of goods, etc. which, belonged to the estate of said George deceased, of which he was bailiff and receiver from January A. D. 1784 to September A. D. 1788; to part of said articles the defendant plead that he was never bailiff and receiver, and as to the rest that he had fully accounted. Both issues were put to the jury. ■ .

EbRob to reverse a judgment of a justice, in an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought by said Atwater y. Oook and Woodruff, for thirty-seven shillings.

ERROR, to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action Ustick v. Jones, which action was duly entered in the docket; and in the course of calling, the clerk was informed that said cause was settled, upon which it was omitted to be called, and the clerk entered against it, done; in this situation it lay several days, when the defendant informed the court, that it was not settled and moved to have it called; that the suggestion of its being settled was a mistake; upon…

<p>Where a writ is dated the 5th of December, 1791, to summon the defendant to appear on the 12th of December “next" — the word next, refers to the month, and is December A. D. 1792.</p>

Action of trespass against tbe defendant for cutting timber on land given to said societies for tbe use of schooling of which the plaintiffs alleged they were seized and possessed, as tenants in common. Plea not guilty. Issue to the jury; who found the defendant guilty. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment — That by the plaintiffs’ own- showing it was not their land, but the land of the ecclesiastical societies which was trespassed upon.

Beardsly et al. before a justice, and appealed to tbe County Court; wherein tbe plaintiff declared, that on tbe 13th of May, A. D. 1789, tbe defendants, by a certain note of that date promised tbe plaintiff to pay to him £44 lawful money, by tbe 1st of April, A. D. 1793, with tbe lawful interest annually, that one year’s interest bad become due on. said note, amounting to £2 12s. lawful money wbicb tbe defendants bad never paid, damage £ writ dated 13tb of May, A. D. 1790.

upon a note dated the 11th of April, A. D. 1789, wherein the defendants promised to pay to the plaintiff £5 10s. lawful moneys’ worth of shopwork, at their shop in Fairfield, at the appraisal of indifferent men, by the 1st of June then next.

<p>Public securities, payable on demand, estimated at the time of the contract.</p>

Action of the case for a nuisance, committed by diverting the water in a certain, stream from the plaintiff’s slitting-mill. Plea — Not guilty. Issue to the jury.

Action upon the statute, entitled an act relating to bridges, declaring that there was an open public highway through the town of Kent, across Ousatonick river, over which there was a bridge, which was the duty of said town to keep and maintain in good repair;'that said bridge had for a long, time been out of repair and in a defective condition, through the negligence of said town, although they well knew of its deficiency, and that it was their duty to have repaired it;…

Application upon the statute to the County Court, complaining that he had an execution against one Holabert for £• upon which said Holabert was committed to prison, and wh'o made his escape through the insufficiency of the gaol, whereby he had wholly lost his debt, etc. Plea in abatement — It doth not appear by the plaintiff’s showing in his declaration but that said Holabert is worth the debt, and that the money may be collected from his estate; and unless this appears the…

Action of the case, declaring that on. the 5th of December A. D. 1786 he was indebted to Charles M’Evers and James Seagrove £162 10s. 8d. York money, for which he gave his bond and also a mortgage of his farm in New Milford; that on the 4th of October last, Jared Lane, attorney to said M’Evers and Seagrove, held his bond on which was due £3 6s. 9d. for interest, and the defendant as substitute to said Lane, called upon the plaintiff for payment, or some further security for…

EkeoR to reverse a judgment of the County Court, on a scire facias, brought by said Ezekiel against said James, complaining that he had an execution against said James for £15 lawful money debt and £2 11s. 8d. cost, issued on a judgment ■of the County Court; that he delivered it to Reed, a constable, who levied said execution on certain articles of household furniture, necessary for upholding life, and which by law were exempted from being taken in! execution — which…

<p>A witness interested in the question not admitted.</p> <p>A good cause of arrest that one of the jurors is interested in the same question.</p>

Petition in chancery; showing, that the petitioner was imprisoned for a debt due to of £40 lawful money, and had not the means, of paying it; that the petitionee, Mr. King and -a number of his neighbors agreed they would be his bondsmen, and take him out of prison, if he would convey to them by am absolute deed a certain, tract of laud he owned in Harwinton, with a quarry of free stone upon it, to be released back to him, upon his paying said debt, and saving them harmless;…

Action of the case; declaring, that on the 5th of March, A. D. 1190, he took out two writs of attachment against the defendant, one on a note for £60, and one on book for £100, both returnable to the County Court on the fourth Tuesday of said March; which were served by attaching the defendant’s body; that the said Judd then having in Iris hands a note upon tli,e plaintiff in favor of Joseph Hallet, for £118 11s. York money, as attorney to said Hallet, applied to the…

Action of the case; declaring, that the defendant was collector of state taxes, etc. and had a number of taxes against the plaintiff; that the defendant advertised and sold his lands to a greater amount than was due for taxes, and the cost. To which a special plea was made in bar, and demurred to by the plaintiff, which was heard and adjudged to be insufficient last court; and now the parties were heard in damages.

Action of trespass brought before a justice. The defendant set, up title; and the cause was removed to the County Court agreeable to the statute.

Action of trover for a pair of oxen, a cow, etc. which the defendant had taken as collector, and sold for taxes, damage £25. Plea- — - Hot guilty. Issue to the jury.

<p>In actions of defamation, evidence of the plaintiff’s general character admissible.</p>

Petition in chancery, showing that Levi Robbins by deed dated November 1786, mortgaged a piece of land to Oliver Robbins, to secure a debt of £60; that afterwards said Levi sold and conveyed to Israel Porter, one acre and twenty-six rods of said mortgaged premises by an absolute deed, wlio immediately went into possession; that in April A. D. 1788 the petitioners recovered a judgment against said Levi and one Stanley, both bankrupts, for the sum of £268 took out execution…

Tbat tbe testator at tbe time of making and executing said last will and testament was not of sound disposing mind and memory. 2d. Tbat tbe testator, at tbe same time be made and executed bis will, first made and executed a deed of a part of bis lands to Jonathan Avery; who is one of tbe three subscribing witnesses to said will, which land said Avery now bolds and claims by force of said deed — whereby said Avery became interested in the sanity of tbe testator, which is tbe…

Action of ejectment to recover possession of a certain farm described in the declaration, declaring that on the 26th of March A. D. 1771, Thomas Remington being well seized of said premises, leased the same to Daniel Remington, in the words and manner following, viz. Thomas Remington, for the consideration that my father Daniel Remington hath this day\ made and executed to me a deed of his farm on which he noiv lives, for his support and maintenance during his natural life,…

Action on note; declaring, that John Belden deceased, in and by a certain note, dated the 19th of April A. D. 1782, promised the said Othniel deceased, to pay to him the sum of £14 7s. Id. upon demand, with the lawful interest, which neither the said John, nor the defendant have ever performed, etc. Plea in bar — That on the 9th of November 1790, the Oourt of Probate made an order that six months be allowed to the creditors of said John to bring in their claims against said…

Beasons for the appeal — That said report contained a sum of about £300 exhibited by said administrators and allowed by said commissioners, for providing and supporting the children of said Welles since his decease. Plea in abatement of the appeal — That the allowance of commissioners in such cases is final, from which no appeal lies,

Eekoe to reverse a judgment of a justice in an action of book-debt Eogers v. Allen. To wliicli the defendant plead in bar — That having prayed oyer of the plaintiff’s book; all the articles charged therein were delivered more than six years before the date and im-petration of the plaintiff’s writ, and by the statute in addition to an act concerning book-debts the plaintiff was barred of any recovery.

AotioN for breaking and entering his house, and begetting his daughter with child. Plea — Not guilty. Issue to the j^y. The daughter was offered as a witness, and objected to; that she had a suit depending for the maintenance of said child; also an action for a breach of promise to marry her.

<p>Eeeor to reverse a judgment of the- County Court on a scire facias, brought by said Stewart v. David Boardman and Jonathan Brewster; declaring, that he brought an action against Jonathan Boardman, an absent absconding debtor, and left copies with said David and said Brewster, agents, factors, attorneys, and debtors to said Jonathan Boardman; that he recovered judgment against said Jonathan Boardman, took out execution which had been returned non est inventus; and that said David and said Brewster, were agents, factors, etc. and had the effects of said Jonathan in their hands, when said copies wrere left as aforesaid; praying for remedy against them, etc.</p> <p>Said David plead — That he never was agent, factor, attorney, or debtor to said Jonathan Boardman, nor had any of bis effects in bis bands; on wbicb plea tbe plaintiff joined issue, and tbe court found tbat be was agent, factor, attorney and debtor to said Jonathan Boardman, and gave judgment for tbe plaintiff to recover; and judgment was entered against said Brewster without any plea or default, and not upon nihil dicit.</p> <p>O'ommon errors assigned.</p> <p>Judgment — Manifest error. Two men or more may be agents, factors, attorneys, and debtors to another, jointly or separately; if separately, they may all be copied, but not joined in one scire facias.</p>

ActioN on a note for £20 14s. upon interest, dated the 24th of April A. D. 1772. The defendant plead in bar — That at the time of mating and executing said note he was a minor under the age of twenty-one years.

<p>A purchaser under an administrator who sells, under an aot of assembly for payment of the debts of the deceased, shall prevail against a voluntary deed given in the lifetime of the deceased.</p>

<p>AguoN of the case, declaring that in’A. D. 1788 the plaintiff bargained and sold to the defendant his farm, lying in East Haddam, for £140 lawful money, which the defendant agreed to give for it, and then made and executed to the defendant a deed of said farm at the price aforesaid, and thereupon the defendant became indebted and liable to pay to the plaintiff said sum for said farm, and being so liable in consideration thereof assumed and promised, etc. Plea — 'Nonassumpsit. Issue to the jury.</p> <p>Tbe defendant objected against tbe plaintiff’s introducing any parol testimony to prove said contract because it was in consideration of land, etc.</p>

AotioN of assumpsit for disbursements and expenditures for tbe support of one Sarab Carter, a pauper, alleged to belong to the town of Goshen. Plea — Nonassumpsit. Issue to tbe jury.

ActioN upon a receipt given for goods taken by an attachment, declaring tbat on tbe 21st day of August A. D. 1786, by virtue of a writ of attachment in favor of Charles Sigour-ney against William Richards and Samuel Buel for £400 lawful money, tbe plaintiff attached certain goods, wares, etc. tbe property of said Richards, viz. (describes them,) to tbe amount of £400 lawful money; tbat be delivered said goods to tbe defendants upon their request to keep1 and return, and…

PetitioN in chancery, showing that on the 10th of February A. D. 1779, on a settlement of accounts between Reuben Beacher, executor of Eliphalet Beacher and Joshua Chandler, there was found due from the estate of said Eliphalet to said Joshua, a greater sum than was due from Samuel Cook deceased, to the estate of said Eliphalet, upon a mortgage given by said Samuel to said Eliphalet, on the 14th of February A. D. 1761, as collateral security for a debt of £70 lawful money;…

<p>Information for the adultery of the wife, the husband cannot be a witness.</p> <p>A person who has been convicted of a theft excluded from testifying.</p>

<p>An action cannot he said to he commenced, until service is made upon the defendants.</p> <p>Where one defendant dies before service upon either, the action does not survive.</p>

<p>A witness who has received communications from the party under an engagement to secrecy, except in case of an attorney, is obliged to testify all he knows when called as a witness.</p>

• Scire Eacias against him as agent, factor, and trustee to Doet.

<p>A defendant against whom there is no evidence and is discharged from any interest may have his name erased from the writ and be a witness.</p> <p>An execution not recorded in the office from whence .it issued although recorded in the records of the town clerk, cannot be revived as evidence of title.</p> <p>A party not prejudiced by a fraudulent conveyance cannot take advantage of it — administrators and executors "who sell land by order of the general assembly, or of the Court of Probate, are not within either the letter or reason of the law, against conveying lands of which the grantor is disseized, etc.</p>

<p>A note for public securities, is to be estimated at tbeir value when payable, and the payments at the time when made.</p>

Actiou of ejectment for a piece of land. Plea — No wrong or disseisin. Issue to the court. The plaintiffs title was the levy of an execution against the defendant, made the 7th of November A..D. 1791.

<p>Depositions taken -within twenty miles of the defendant’s known attorneys without citing either, not admitted.</p> <p>An action upon a statute to recower a penalty, is within the law enabling the court to return the jury to a second and third consideration.</p>

<p>The statute in. favor of poor prisoners who have taken the oath is to have a reasonable construction.</p>

<p>Wliere there are several defendants In a prosecution, and several judgments in the County Court, part of whom bring a writ of error and have the judgments reversed as to them; and the plaintiff enters his original cause, the defendants who were not-parties to- the writ of error, are not before the court.</p>

<p>Aotxoh on the covenants of seisin, in a deed dated the 17 th of February A. D. 1786, alleging that the defendant was not seized of said lands, but that one William Dunscomb was seized at the time of executing said deed. '</p> <p>Plea in bar — That the defendant was well seized of said land on the 17th of February A. D. 1786 — without that that said William Dunscomb was seized. Issue to the jury.</p> <p>The plaintiff offered in evidence a copy of a deed from the records, of said land to William Dunscomb, to prove that the title was in him. To which it was objected that the original ought to be produced.</p>

Action of ejectment for a tract of land. Plea — FTo wrong or disseisin. Issue to the jury. The plaintiff attached this land as the property of Quintard, recovered judgment and had execution against him and had it levied upon the land in July A. D. 1790. This was his title.

<p>A witness being interrogated muter tlie witnesses’ oatli and purgetb liimself, the party may not resort to other proof.</p>

<p>Action of trover for a vessel. Issue to the jury. The dispute was respecting the property.</p>

<p>What one co-obligor has said who is not sued, cannot be given in evidence against the other.</p> <p>The creditor consenting to the release of one joint debtor is a release of both.</p>

<p>A purchaser under a collector who sold the land for payment of ta.xes, may not enter till the year is expired.</p> <p>A collector may not take the whole of a man’s Interest for a shorter term than he has In It, but must take such part as is necessary, for the whole term.</p>

<p>If A. recommends B. to O. for a certain sum, and thereupon C; trusts B. and takes his notes payable at a certain time, and B. gives A. his note for the same sum, payable one month after B.’s note is payable to 0. conditioned that, if he holds A. harmless from said debt to G. then said note to be void, if B. fails to pay said debt to C. before his note is payable to A. he will be liable upon it.</p>

Ebboe to reverse a judgment of the County Court, denying an appeal in an action of debt by book, for a sum more than £20, and demanding in damages £30, brought by Nelson v. Hammond. The defendant plead in abatement — Dhninution of the record.

<p>... Petition in chancery; showing, that said Prat was a collector of taxes for the town of Kent; that he had a tax against said Winegar, for £22; that he levied upon a tract of land, described in the petition, worth £240 lawful money, and sold it on the 20th. of March, A. D. 1787, to Botsford for said taxes and cost, that Botsford had reconveyed said land to said Prat; that said Winegar died in July, 1787, having appointed the petitioner his executor; that the estate was insolvent; that said Prat exhibited said taxes to the commissioners as a claim against said estate, and had them, allowed; that the petitioner was ignorant of said sale and deed, until after a year had elapsed from the sale; that the heirs of said Winegar were minors; that said Winegar refused to receive said taxes, interest and cost, and to release said lands; praying that he might be compelled to do it.</p> <p>Upon the evidence it appeared ■— That the land was worth much more than it was sold for; that said WinegaPs estate was not insolvent; that the executor had discretionary power given him by the will, to sell lands, if necessary for certain purposes; that said Winegar had personal estate to pay said taxes, and other lands which were clear.</p>

<p>Public securities payable on demand — estimated at the time of the contract.</p>

Action of the case; declaring, that the town, of Litchfield in December A. D. 1189, chose and appointed Andrew Adams, Jr. a constable for A. D. 1190, who was duly sworn; that in January A. D. 1790, he delivered to said Constable Adams an attachment in his favor against Zebulon Taylor, of said Litch-field, for £ lawful money, and returnable to the County Court in Litchfield, holden on the fourth Tuesday of March, A. D. 1790, that said Constable Adams returned said writ…

Action of trespass for cutting of trees, etc. on the statute. Plea - — -Not guilty. Issue to the jury. Certain depositions were objected to and excluded, because they were taken, more than two hours after the time set in the notification, and the defendant gone, who had been waiting .near two hours at the place of caption, and neither the. plaintiff nor any of the witnesses appeared whilst he stayed.

<p>Where in an action on hook, a balance is found for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals, and after entering, withdraws his action,, the defendant may enter and have the judgment of- ■ the County Court affirmed.</p>

Action upon the covenants in a deed; declaring, that the defendant by deed dated the 8th of December A. D. 1789, bargained and sold to him forty acres of land, particularly bounded and described in said deed, and covenanted that he was well seized of said forty acres, etc. when in fact, at the date and execution of said deed, he was not seized of more than thirty-five acres within said bounds, etc. To his damage £10.

Action of trover for twelve tons of hay. The defendants plead severally not guilty. Issue to the jury.

Petition in chancery for the foreclosure of the equity of redemption in a mortgaged estate — showing that on the 12th of September A. D. 1789 said Lemuel mortgaged a farm of 101 acres to James Roberts and Amos Gfillet for £324 13s. lawful money and the interest, payable in eighteen months; that on the 12th of August A. D. 1790, said James and Amos assigned said mortgage to the petitioner; that thirty-seven acres of said farm was mortgaged to one Price of Boston, previous to…

<p>A soldiei that enlists t)y the procurement of two men, in exoneration of themselves, is entitled to all the public premiums.</p>

Error from the judgment of the Superior Court affirming a judgment of the O’ounty Court in the county of Tolland, in an action by said Foster against said town of East Windsor, for an additional bounty granted by said town to soldiers who enlisted into the continental army. Judgment of the Superior Court reversed.

<p>INFORMATION for forging a discharge. Tbe defendant plead not guilty. Issue to tbe jury.</p> <p>Smith, in whose name said discharge was given, was offered a witness, but not admitted. See State v. Brownson, Litchfield, August Term, A. D. 1791.</p>

<p>AgtioN for a nuisance; declaring, that for time immemorial a certain stream of water had run through the defendant’s land and in its natural course, to and through the plaintiff’s land, which he had constantly used for watering his cattle, flowing his land, and carrying his grist-mill, which was anciently erected upon said stream; that on the day of August, 1790, the defendant by digging a ditch on his own land, had turned and diverted said water out of its natural course, so that it was prevented coming to the plaintiff’s land; whereby he was deprived of it for the purposes above expressed, etc. Damage £500.</p> <p>Plea — Not guilty. Issue to the jury.</p> <p>Question — Whether the plaintiff might give evidence of any diverting of said water, for the purpose of enhancing the damages previous to July, A. D. 1790, when said obstructions were removed by the plaintiff.</p>

<p>The court will not, on a motion, decide a question relating to the power of agency which involves in it the merits of the cause to he tried.</p> <p>Where a number of persons dissent from the same church, etc. • and form themselves into a church or society separate from the other church and society— there is no need of their lodging any certificate, etc. and they thereupon become disabled to vote in said first society, except in matters pertaining to schools and schooling.</p>

AotioN on a note, dated 21st of April A. D. 1790, which is, “For value received in a jack ass, I promise to pay seven likely mules, four months old, by the 1st of October A. D. 1791.” The plaintiff averred said mules were worth £60, etc. Plea in bar — That at the time of executing said note the plaintiff executed to the defendant a writing', wherein he agreed, that in case said jack proved deficient in begetting of mules, he would take him back and replace another in his…

<p>AotioN of the case; declaring, that the defendant on the 1st of July, A. D. 1790, was indebted to the plaintiff £80 lawful money, and in order to pay it, the defendant assigned and indorsed to the plaintiff, a note executed to the defendant by John and Thomas Stowel, dated May 6, 1789, whereby for value received in a certain jack ass, they promised the defendant six likely mules, one year old, out of the first crop from said jack, which was to be kept for covering only: That the indorsement on said note was in the words following, viz. For value received I do assign and warrant the within obligation unto Samuel Perkins, and promise that the within mentioned six yearling mules shall be delivered to him by the 1st of June, A. D. 1792. E. Perkins, Jr. Which note and indorsement the plaintiff received in payment of his said debt; that said Stowels had never delivered said mules, nor paid their said note to the plaintiff, nor had the defendant ever performed his promise contained in said indorsement; that said six mules were worth £80 lawful money. Damage £80. Demurrer to the declaration.</p>

<p>ActioN upon the covenants in a deed, declaring that on the 1st of June A. D. 1760, said John Williams, llezekiah Sabin and Mary Sabin were administrators on the estate of Noah Sabin deceased; that pursuant to a resolve of the general assembly, they sold a certain piece of land belonging toi the estate of said Noah to John Eaton, for £2 10s. lawful money, and in and by their deedi executed to said Eaton of said land, they covenanted that they were well seized and had good right to sell the same as the estate of said Noah, and warranted the same to said Eaton, his heirs and assigns; that said Eaton sold and conveyed said land by deed to Wheaton with like covenants of seisin and warranty, and said Wheaton, by deed with like covenants, sold and conveyed said land to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had been evicted of said land in a due course of law, by the heirs of Noah Sabin; that said Hezekiah Sabin died before the year A. D. 1762; that said John Williams died in. A. D. 1766 and left a plentiful estate, of whose last will the defendant is executor; that the said Mary was also dead and had left no estate, executor or administrator.</p> <p>The defendant demurred to the declaration.</p>

<p>AotioN of trover for eighty-three pieces of gold coin, amounting to £151 10s. 8d. lawful money. Plea — :Not guilty.- Issue to the court.</p> <p>The plaintiff was overseer to Jesse Spalding, and had an execution in his favor against Dunlap for the aforesaid sum, which it was the duty of Abraham Shepard to pay; Abraham Shepard prayed out an attachment against said Jesse, directed to one Gallop an indifferent person to serve, without his knowledge, who declined serving it, and said Abraham then inserts the name of the defendant his brother in the-writ, in tbe place of Gallop’s, without the knowledge of the justice who signed it; the defendant then went with said Abraham to the plaintiff’s, where the officer was who had the execution in favor of said Jesse, and said Abraham paid the money upon the table, the plaintiff indorsed said execution satisfied, as overseer or agent to said Jesse; the defendant attached it as the property of said Jesse, by virtue of said Abraham’s attachment and took it away; said Abraham fearing his said writ would fail, prayed out another attachment against said Jesse for the same cause, dropped the first and attached the same money that the defendant had taken, and that suit was now depending in court.</p>

<p>Whore money is taken from a garnishee by a compulsory process in the law — it ought to excuse him.</p>

<p>Possession" doth not begin to run against tbe remainderman until after tbe death of thei particular tenant.</p>

<p>A defendant in a scire facias cannot take advantage of anything which might have been plead to. the original action.</p>

<p>Action for a trespass committed upon land, brought before a justice, declaring that for more than four years before tbe doing of tbe facts complained of, be was seized and possessed of tbe land and place where, etc.</p> <p>Tbe defendant plead — Tbat for more than one year before said trespass was said to have been committed, be was actually and peaceably possessed of tbe land and place where said facts were done, and tbat tbe plaintiff ought to be barred ■without that, that tbe plaintiff for more than four years before the doing of the facts complained of was seized and possessed in manner and form as alleged in his declaration.</p> <p>Upon which said justice took a bond, and handed said cause over to the County Court, upon the idea that the title was to be tried, and from the County Court said cause was appealed to this court; and now the plaintiff moved that said cause be erased, as the defendant had set up no title in his plea that he relied upon, and had only averred a one year’s possession, as inducement to his traverse of the plaintiff’s title.</p>

Soire Eaoias, declaring that he recovered a judgment against Jonathan Boardman, an absent absconding debtor, for £83; that the defendants were severally served with a copy in said suit, as agents, factors, debtors, etc., to said Jonathan Boardman, and that they had his effects in their hands at the time said copies were left in service.

<p>Soike Eaoias, declaring, that he recovered a, judgment against Daniel Stanton an absent absconding debtor, for £22 7s.; and that the defendant was regularly served with a copy of the process as agent, factor, etc., to said Stanton, and had the effects of said Stanton in his hands when said copy was left in service.</p> <p>Plea in bar — That he was not otherwise agent, trustee, or debtor to said Stanton, then as commissioner of loans to the United States, to pay the sums due from the United States, to certain invalids, upon the pension list, on proper application, agreeable to the rules and regulations of the treasury and not otherwise, and that there was due from the United States to. said Stanton, £36 which he was ready to pay upon proper application. Demurrer.</p>

Eeeob to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action brought by Dow v. Kelly, on a note, by writ directed to the sheriff of the city of Norwich to. serve and return; said Kelly was also described to be of said city. The writ was served and returned by the city sheriff, to the County Court to which it was returnable.

<p>In an action for a 'malicious prosecution tlie plaintiff must show that he was acquitted.</p> <p>An action of the case for a perjury will not lie against a witness after a lapse of years.</p>

<p>AotioN for tbe partition of a certain tract of land; declaring, tbat tbey beld in sucb manner and proportion, as tbat tbe plaintiff bad right to have aparted and set out to bim one-third of said tract, and tbe defendant two-tbirds of said tract.</p> <p>Plea —■ Tbat tbe plaintiff and defendant did not bold in manner and proportion as set forth in tbe declaration. Issue to tbe court.</p> <p>The plaintiff produced tbe will of Nathaniel Larabee, dated tbe 31st of March, A. D. 1738, proved and approved June the 8th, A. D. 1741, which was in tbe words following, viz. “ I give to my wife Sarah, tbe whole of my estato during her natural life, tbe paying my debts, and after her decease, I give the same to my kinsman James Larabee, and to tbe male heir of his body lawfully begotten in fee-tail, viz. to tbe male heir of my said kinsman James Larabee, by succession, from generation to generation forever ”■ — • tbe said Nathaniel was seized at tbe date of tbe will, and at tbe time of his death. Tbe wife survived tbe testator forty years; she also survived said James Larabee, several years, and died; tbat said James bad two sons only, tbe plaintiff and defendant. Upon tbe death of tbe wife said 'Sarah, tbe defendant went into possession of tbe whole, and bad remained in ever since. The der fendant demurred to tbe evidence, and tbe plaintiff joined tbe demurrer.</p> <p>Judgment — Tbat tbe evidence is sufficient; and tbat tbe plaintiff and defendant do bold in manner and proportion as set forth in tbe plaintiff’s declaration, etc.</p>

<p>AotioN of ejectment for a piece of land, described in tbe declaration. Plea — Not guilty. Issue to tbe court.</p> <p>One Stanton was owner of tbe land; tbe defendant bad an execution against him — levied it upon this land in A. D. 1184, and in September A. D. 1184 bad it recorded in tbe office of tbe town clerk, and returned it to tbe office of tbe county clerk from whence it issued, on tbe 2d of December A. D. 1791, and caused it to be recorded there on tbe 26th of September A. D. 1792. Tbe plaintiff attached this land on tbe 5th of February A. D. 1791 for a debt due to him from said Stanton — ■got judgment and execution for said debt, and levied the execution upon said land on the 6th of October A. D. 1791 — which levy was recorded in the town clerk’s office on the 2d of November A D. 1791, and in the office of the county clerk on the 5th of January A D. 1792. It .appeared that the plaintiff knew that the defendant had levied his execution upon this land, and that it was not recorded in the county clerk’s office when he attached it.</p> <p>Judgment — 'That the defendant is guilty and for the plaintiff to recover.</p>

<p>Soire Eaoias against said Winthrop as agent, factor, trustee, etc. to Joseph Woodbridge, an absent absconding debtor.</p> <p>Plea in bar — That said Joseph was not at the date and service of the original writ, an absent absconding debtor; and the defendant had paid and delivered to said Joseph all the effects of said Joseph’s which were in his hand and possession.</p> <p>Plaintiff replied — That said Joseph was described in said original writ and in the copy left with the defendant, to be an absent absconding debtor, by which he had right by law and in fact did appear and defend said Joseph, his principal in said cause; that the defendant having in his hands a much greater sum than was due to the plaintiff, said Joseph instituted a suit against him for it, and before the special Superior dourt, holden at New London, in July A. D. 1789, recovered judgment for tbe same against tbe defendant, at wbicb time tbe defendant moved said court for a stay of said Joseph’s execution, upon tbe ground of tbe plaintiff’s foreign attachment lying against him; upon wbicb said court ordered said execution to be stayed until said Joseph procured and gave to tbe defendant a good bond with surety sufficient to indemnify bim against said foreign attachment, wbicb was accordingly done before said execution was taken out; that said Joseph was a bankrupt, and tbe defendant estopped to say that said Joseph was not an absent absconding debtor, upon tbe scire facias.</p> <p>Tbe defendant rejoined, traversing tbe defendant’s appearing and taking upon bim tbe defense of said Joseph in tbe original suit, as attorney to bim. To which tbe plaintiff demurred.</p> <p>Judgment — That tbe rejoinder of tbe defendant is insufficient.</p>