WILLIAMS verʃus GEHEOGAN.
M
OYLAN, in fhewing caufe againft a rule for a Special Court, at the inftance of the Plaintiff, contended, firʃt, that Williams was not within the defcription of the perfons for whom the act provides a fummary relief ; and, ʃecondly, that the difficulty of obtaining the Defendant's teftimony at a fhort notice, was a fufficient reafon to induce the Court to difcharge the rule.On the firʃt point, it was stated that Williams was not in America at the time when the debt was contracted, for which this action was brought ; but that he came hither merely to collect the debts of a houfe, in which he had formerly been a partner ; that, therefore, he could not claim the benefit of the act, which, it was urged, extended only to foreigners, who came to this country in the way of trade, who refided here while their merchandize was fold, and who were not punctually paid at the expiration of the credit which they gave. 3 St. Laws. 31. Lewis v. Turner in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia, was cited. The Plaintiff in that cafe was a refident of New-York, and came to Philadelphia merely to fue, and recover from the Defendant : The Court determined that he was not entitled to a Special Court ; and SHIPPEN, Preʃident, faid, that a citizen of the United States was not a foreigner in Pennʃylvania .
On the ʃecond point, it was obferved, that the Defendant being fued as fuper-cargo, it would be incumbent on him to ftate all the accounts of the veffel in queftion ; that he was at this time in Charleʃton, South-Carolina, having in his poffeffion all the documents and vouchers neceffary to his defence; that he had always expreffed a determination to attend the trial of the caufe, and that his abfence
could not be long protracted, as the ſpecial bail had ſent a bail piece and power of attorney to take the Defendant, and ſurrender him in this Court.
Coulthurſt, for the Plaintiff, laid, that the debt was contracted in Philadelphia, and was there due and payable from the Defendant to the Plaintiff ; that Williams came hither to pay the debts of the company, as well as to collect their credits ; that he was a foreigner, in the ſtrongeſt meaning of the word, and, conſequently, could not be affected by the caſe of Lewis v Turner, which was decided on the ground of the party's being a citizen.
With reſpect to the accounts, he endeavoured to ſhew, from the cauſe of action, that they could not be material to the defence on this occaſion; and contended, that the Defendant's abſence was no reaſon to defeat the Plaintiff's claim to the benefit of the act.
M’KEAN, Chief Juſtice.–The act ſeems to be intended for the benefit of every man, whether an inhabitant, or a foreigner, who is about to leave the State; and the Plaintiff is clearly within the deſcription of perſons entitled to a Special Court. But, we think, for the ſecond reaſon which has been urged by the Defendant's counſel, that it would be doing manifeſt injuſtice to hurry the trial on at this time: Therefore,