SMITH verſus DAVIDS.
A
RULE for trial, or Non pros, was taken in September Term, 1787, and notice at bar was entered on the docket. The cauſe was afterwards continued, generally, ‘till January Term,1789, and no notice given.
The cauſe being now marked for trial, the Plaintiff moved to put it off.
But the court held, that the rule for trial or Non pros was continued ; and that no new notice was neceſſary. It, therefore, the Plaintiff does not go on to trial, the Defendant is entitled to a Non pros.
ROBBINS verſus WHITMAN.
T
HIS cause was removed by Certiorari from one of the Justices of the Peace for Northumberland county ; and, after argument, the judgment of the Justice was affirmed.
It then became a question, whether execution could issue out of this Court upon the judgment so affirmed?
And, it was ruled by the court, that execution might iffue at once, without referring the cause again to the Justice; as that would be a circuitous, inconvenient, and unreasonable mode of proceeding.
COMMON
