¶1however, remained of the same opinion, after consulting the following authorities: Seward v. Baker, 1 Term R. 616; Esp. N. P. 130; Weston v. Downes, Doug. 24; Towers v. Barrett, 1 Term R. 134; Toussant v. Martinnant, 2 Term R. 104: Esp. N. P. 138; Anon., 1 Ld. Raym. 735; Hockin v. Cooke, 4 Term R. 314; Bull. N. P. 145; Churchill v. Wilkins, 1 Term R. 449; Esp. N. P. 140; Cutter v. Powell, 6 Term R. 320; Duncomb v. Tickridge, Aleyn, 94; Baker v. Edmonds, Id. 29; Janson v. Colomore, 1 Rolle, 396; Beckingham v. Scot, 2 Keb. 240; Milward v. Ingram, 2 Mod. 43; Gordon v. Martin, Fitzg. 303; Baker’s Case of Gray’s Inne v. Occould, Godb. 186; Holme v. Lucus, Cro. Car. 6; Cooke v. Samburne, 1 Sid. 182; 1 Vin. Abr. 360; 1 Com. Dig. 193; System of Pleading, 104; Gilb. Ev. 188; Godb. 154; Child v. Guiat, Styles, 243; Giles v. Edwards, 7 Term R. 181; Barker v. Sutton, Trials per Pais (3d Ed.) 186; Franklin v. Walkens, Id. 187; Old Law of Evidence, 158, 160, 165, 166; Cheney v. Hawes, Moore, 466; Tissard v. Warcup, 2 Mod. 280; Gilb. Ev. 189, etc.; Trials per Pais, 504; Mustard V. Hopper, Cro. Eliz. 149; Lea v. Adams, 3 Bulst. 35; Revera v. Baptista. Moore, 470; King v. Robinson, Cro. Eliz. 79; Bagnal v. Sacheverell, Id. 292; Munday v. Martin, Id. 660.
¶2Rule discharged.