`F Casts ruled and in the. t786.pliednotieeof trial,from thelheriif}or anyotherperfon: -�V*#And, therefore, amotiontobringit on was refufed. Br me Conn :-The defendant has not received fuch no- tieeoftrial, aunade it reafonable for himto prepare; No laehescan be imputedtohim; for, heis not obliged toattend
at Courgwhetherhiseanfeismarkedfor trial,ornot.
i In£`c'::lbndtheproofofa&ualnotieeisrequircd:But,with
ns,astheGentlemanofthelaware¤otfonunnerons,astl1ey
- live difperfed, andaatherearenorcgular pofls,therigorofthat
i rule is not impofed. Still, however, a reafonable notiec oftr·i· § almuitbegivenmtheparty,notmerclytohisartorney; and,
- after all, the rules for bringing on caufes muil he inlluenced by
j a legal cilgcretion, applicable to the peculiar eircumllanees of l every . i L¤srr£x’s Lclfee wrjiu Lens. 4 ls N this caufe articles of agreeraent, for the fale of a honfe
H- I and lot in Gcrnunlovvn, wereolferedinevidenceas adeed,
? 4Ql under the following circumllances. The articles purported to be I for the fale of a houfe and live acres of land, for the conlidera- , tion 0f`£o;20< yable, [quo in calh, and remainder in bonds. Dam}! gfdo}? who was produced as the witnefs to the exe· cution of the articles, {lated that he was called into a room by Stuwahr (the contractor to fell) to witnefs the execution of g the bonds; that when he came in, the papers were lying on a ta- - ble before Lylw (the contraélor to purehafe) and Lg/ber delired ‘ him at to lign as a witneliz : That he did not aétually fee Smwa- » kr iign, feal, or deliver the papers, which he fuppofed to have been regularly executed before he was called in; but that he faw the money paid, and he knew the hand·writing to be Stau- al·o·’:: Andthat poifellion of the premifcs wasafterwards, in pur-
- fuance of the agreement, delivered to one Harb, of whom
Stuwukr rented arooni in the houfe in qucllion, tor {8. - ` The Counfel for the defendant oppofed the adnrillion of the articles of agreement, contending that there was no proof of the fealing and delivering, which are •:ll`ential to a deed. But nr THE Count :-·'1`hcre is fnllicicnt proof, that the in- (lrument was ligned by $t.1·w.:k.·r; and, therefore, we {hall let it go to the ]ury; who will determine, for themfelves, whether that, and the other eircurnllances in the cafe, are fatisfaétory evidence of fealmg and delivery. I _ · Rum, jujfue :—I differ tn opnmou from the reft of the Court. Ithinl: that before the iuitrument is read, fealing and delivering lhould be proved. lf, indeed, the _witnciI`cs were proved
�
