SMITH verʃus DAVIDS.
A
RULE for trial, or Non pros, was taken in September Term, 1787, and notice at bar was entered on the docket. The caufe was afterwards continued, generally, ‘till January Term,1789, and no notice given.
The caufe being now marked for trial, the Plaintiff moved to put it off.
But the court held, that the rule for trial or Non pros was continued ; and that no new notice was neceffary. It, therefore, the Plaintiff does not go on to trial, the Defendant is entitled to a Non pros.
ROBBINS verʃus WHITMAN.
T
HIS caufe was removed by Certiorari from one of the Juftices of the Peace for Northumberland county ; and, after argument, the judgment of the Juftice was affirmed.
It then became a queftion, whether execution could iffue out of this Court upon the judgment fo affirmed?
And, it was ruled by the court, that execution might iffue at once, without referring the caufe again to the Juftice; as that would be a circuitous, inconvenient, and unreafonable mode of proceeding.
