Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/94

 Rh 

HE plaintiff having had a verdict in the abcence of the defendant, and having agreed to withdraw it, and ubmit to a referrence, three perons, nominated by the Court, accordingly met. Upon entering into the cae, the parties, who were preent, began a warm altercation, which proving troubleome to the referrees, they ordered the diuptants to withdraw, and called the witnees one after another, examining them eparately out of the hearing of both plaintiff and defendant, and finally reported in favour of the former.

Thee facts being etablihed, the report was et aide, on motion of the defendant’s counel.

Levy for the plaintiff.—Lewis for the defendant. 

N an action of debt upon a bond, judgment being obtained, and execution iued, Wilcocks moved to tay proceedings upon this ground; that, though the bond was dated in June, the conideration, for which it was given, aroe before the 1t of March 1781; and therefore, he contended, that his client was within the protection of the Act of Aembly passed the 27th of December 1784, which entitles a defendant to a tay of execution, for a certain time, upon tendering the interet and cots to the heriff.

Bradford, for the plaintiff, was prepared with an affidavit to controvert the facts advanced in upport of the motion; but he forbore reading it, and inited that the Court could not travel into a conideration of the tranactions for which the bond was given.

Wilcocks took nothing by his motion. Rh
 * —It would occaion infinite trouble and conuion were the defendant’s doctrine to be admitted, and it is impoible to ay where the michief would end. It is true, that before a jury, proof may be made of the conideration, and of the time of delivering a bond; but this Act of Aembly which, in particular caes, grants a delay of execution to the defendant, upon the tender of the interet and cots, mut, urely, at the ame time, recognize the written intrument as conclusive evidence of the contract; and we can enquire no father.