3 32 Cass ruled and adjudged in the 1795. than have been given; and to thefe he added the change of the l/wr`) tribunal. But he particularly inlilted, that the neglect of ap- pealing from the order of Chief jultice M•Kux, was his own [adm, which he ought not to be allowed to remedy by trans- fering the fuit to another Court, at the expence of his antago- nift. 2 Wil:. 381. · Pnranson, _‘}'ryIi¢·e :-The grounds of vexation in this cafe do not appear to me to befuch as to jnltify the refufal of bail; and every cafe of this nature mufl; be decided upon its own circumftances. I {hall always, indeed, be a friend to the prac- tice of holding to bail, wherever there is a probable caufe of aétione Here the eaufe of aftionis apparent; and though it may be liable to a reafonable controverfy, or may be refuted up- _ on a trial, we ought not to inveftigate the merits at this ftage, further than to afcertain what probability there exills in fup- port of the plaintifT's claim. The negleét to appeal from the order of the Chief jufliee of Pemg/`yluania, which eventually occalioned the difcontinuance of the lirft fuit, appears, likewife, to bea mere {lip of the attorney; and if we can, conliltently with the law, prevent the plaintiH’s fufering in confequenee of that llip, I think we ought to do it. Pumas, _71¢i:e:—On the hearing before me, I perceived, · that there had been a lapfe in not bringing the {irft fuit formal- lybefore the State Court; and I was defirous of putting the queflion on the fame footing here, as if an appeal had been re· gularly inflituted there. I entertain ahigh refpeét for the opi- nions of the Chief };.?l:ice of Privy Ivmxia; and, on this ocea- fion, I am difpofed ro think, that the plaintiffs inability to {tate his cafe in the abfence of his attorney, or the defeélz of proof at the time, occaéoned his ilfuing the order for difcharging the defendant on common bail. But, as the matter appears to this Court, I perfeétly concur in the fentiments, which have been delivered by ]udge Pnrrnnson. The order to hold the defendant to bail, was, accordingly, afiirmed. Gsvcstfs Leffcc verfu Guam. A RULE had been obtained by the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to fhew caufe, why an order fhould not be made for the produélion of certain deeds and papers on the trial _ of this caufe, agreeably to the provilion of the 1 gth fe€tion of the judicial aft: And now, on proof that a copy of the rule was fcrved on the plaintilPs attorney, it was moved to make the fame abfolute. . But;
�
