ftTHEN the trial came on, the plaintiff was about to read two * ” depositions of one Philips and his wife, which were essential in the cause, and it ivas objected that Philips, the witness, was a surety for the costs of the suit; whereupon his testimony was rejected. The plaintiff moved fora new trial, on the ground of surprize ; and M-Cay, judge, rejected .his motion without hesitation.
Arrington's administrator v. Coleman, 3 N.C. 300, 2 Hayw. 300 (1804)
April 1804
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 300, 2 Hayw. 300