Cmcurr Coun', Pmgglwnia Dillri&. 36; between the teihtor and the defendant, while commilfaries in rygo. the American army, during the revolutionary war. The Bill lésl charged the defendant (among other fraudulent praélices) with makin eeafures in the complainants books; and, alfo, fetforth a number of fpecific errors and over-charges in the account; The defendant filed an anfwer to the Bill, in which he denied all fraud, canvalfed and refuted the fpeciimtion of errors and over·charges, and pleaded the ltatute of limitation:. Rawls and Lewir, having obtained a rule to lhew eaufe, why the Bill lhould not be amended, hy igferting, that the frauds charged had come to the complain.mt’s knowledge within jx years before the commencement of the fuit,·now moved to make the rule ahfolute; and cited r Hn·.Cb. ro6. 3 P. Wm. 143- Dallas, for the defendant, admitted that the allowance of amendments was difcretionary with the Court; ·but, contended, that after a general anfwer to the allegations, and a denial of the frauds {lated in the Bill, the complainant ought not to be indulged, without fome other proof to fupport the charge of fraud, than hisbare alfertion. In the cafes cited in 3 P.Wm. _ 143, there was no anfwer to the Bill, but merely a plea of the ftatute of limitations; and in the priucimihcafe, the Chancellor only ordered the defendant to aufwer, w ' the prefent defend- ant has already done. Twelve years hare elapfed iince the ac- count was fettled ; .and the fraud being denied on oath, and un- fupported by any fpeciea of evidence, the complainant ought not to be permitted to harrafs the defendant, and. proeraltinate a decilion. _ . Br rm: Comvr :—-Oonliderations refpeéfting the merits of the caufe, ought not to weigh in the determination of the prefent queltion. The complainant could not forcfee that the llatute of limitations would e pleaded , and it is in order to bring be- fore the Court an eifential fait ariling from that plea, that the amendment is propofed. The rule made abfolutc. Kertmn, gui tam. wnfur The Cassius. _ N information that had been exhibited againll the C4_#`u:, 3 L_ as a velfel illegally out-litted within the jurifdiétion of ul? t e United Stutex," came on to be argued upon a fuggellion filed ra-ojcio bythe Attorney of the Dittriit, in putfuance of direc- tions from the Prelident, (hating, that the vcifel was the pub- lic ° SM €l'•¢ Uviffd Swiss r. R.H·!e1u‘. liry. in time Supreme Court of the United Stem.
�
