Hallet v. Cotton , 1 Cai. Cas. 11 ( 1803 )

Per curiam.

The practice of the mayor’s court, in obliging the amount of the verdift to be brought into court on a motion for a new trial, has never been adopted here. The infolvency of the bail^* is certainly not a fufficient ground to induce us to make fuch an order ; and a copy of the affirmation, refpeéting the defendant’s circumitances, has never been ferved on him: of that, therefore, we can take no notice.^† But let it be underitood, we do not mean to fay, that had it been otherwife we would have granted the motion.

Rule refufed.

* See Gillespie ads. Plaister & M'Comb, as to infolvency in cafes of fecurity for coft. Cole. Ca. Prac. 119.

† Card ads, Fitzroy & ors. Cole. Ca. Prac. 63. whenever a fpecial motion is to be made on an affidavit, a copy mult be ferved. See alfo Grove againft Campbell, ibid. 114, that fupplementary affidavits to rebut thofe in anfv/er, cannotbe received»