Open main menu

Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/156

This page needs to be proofread.

rge Gnu ruled and adjudged in the ryga. inother esfes, will not doin fueh acafe as this, tinee the euf. ¢Vvtomsmong merchants is oppofed to it as appears fromallthe writers and eolleétors of ca es, from the report by Ld. R¤ym._ until the prefent time. There is a cafe referred to, in 3 Term. Rep. p. rz;. whiehalfoconEnnsthisdo6trine.. Let judgment he entered for the defendant, as in cafe of a non·fuit. Foxcnrr rmfu: NAGLE. ‘ _ ` ITHIN the four iirll: days of the term, Ingnfzll and ` W Ti{gbm1m moved for a new trial on the point of a mifdireétion ofthe 'udge." Sejmrt objeffted to the rule, no notice in writing of! the intended motion having been given, as is required by the rules of the Court. The eounfel for the plaintiff ·then urged, that the point they wiihed to agitate was leftopen by the Court, and referred for ar ument in Bank ;at leak, that they underllsood it fo, and that grey did not conlider rioticeas neceifary, where a liberty of moving the point was referred in the prcfence of the parties at Ny? Priu:. But, at any rate, the miilake was a fuflicient ground to difpenfe with the ihifknefs of the rule. In 4 Burr. 227I. the miltalre of the attomey inducedthe Court to difpenfe with the four day rule. Ser- jmnt. In the rule of the K. B. there is aprovilion that fuch a mo- tion maybe made after the four days, •• an jwial leave Mug died and obtained? Br ·rr·u: Comvr :—There was no point referved on the trial of this caufe. The Court had no doubt in their minds; but, as it was a great national queiiion, we ihould have had no objeétion to a more folemn argument. We, therefore, told the jury, that if the plainti£i"s counfel defired to have the queftion re-eonfidered, they would have an opportunity of moving it at the return of the Pgiea. This motion is di- reéily in the face of the rule, and cannot befufiained. _ Rule refufcd. Cr.n1·ox‘s Leifee wr/iu Arsnousa. TIHS caufe was carried down for trial, at the lait NM Pri- ~ ur in Northumberland County ; but the defendant rcfufing to confefs hw, hurry, and Win-, the plaintiff was non-fuited. Wi[¢‘0¢E£

  • SL'&°• ldiiis J"- IJ]; `