Burman Count or PmnjjIuni4.` ra; ary General contending forthe alhrmative of the propolition, rygr. and Srrjrzmt oppoling it. vw`! Tun Courr, after conlideration, delivered an unanimous opinion, that under the a& of Alfembly, and theuniform prac- uee of eighty-liveyears(aprat‘.i1oe, which, though tt not make the law, mult be flrong evidence of what the law xs) the indiélment could not be fuppormed on the charge of adultery: But that the judgment for fornication only, multbe pronounc- ed againli the defendant. jujgment accordingly. Lnncu verfur Annncn." THB was an aélion of trefpalk forcuttingtrees. The de- fendant pleaded Libermu Trumunnnn ; and the replied Liberian Tmrsnmluun jiumt a§/que br, E5':. The trial came on at Ny? Prin, in lbntgonmy County, before um CIKEF jusrrcs, and ]udge Sun•rnu,on the 28th Jpn7, rygx. prelim' queltion arilin who lhould o theuufe, it was decidlgdzr Tue Comt·r,€ifter argument,PtTnt the proof of theilfue layupon the defendant: and that he, therefore, ought to begin. The Cmnt jusncs added, that in all cafes, the party who is lirll in the allirmative ought regularly to open; and referred to Fvrjjtbr wgfu: your, tried at Ny? Prius, in Cbgner County, where the fame point was ruled. thetrial of the eaufe, the defendant gavein evidence the record of a ¤·ial, verdiét, and judgment, between the fame parties, at aformcr period; towit, in the year 1355. The plaintilf thereupon offered to prove by a witnefs, who was pre- fent at the former trial, that the evidence, now iven by the plaintil}, was not then produced, nor difcovered: gut the proof was objeéted to, and the Court refufed to admit it. Br rm: Coutrr :—It would be too dangerous to truh to the recollection of a witnefs in fo old a tranfafliom, inorder to lhake the ltrength of the evidence, which the record imports. " Decided at .’|I0m_gcm¢·»y, NM Prius. . Sepzmhr
�
