
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1803.
    Ridgely vs. Campbell.
    Notwithstanding notice of trial, a continuance of the action will be granted to the defendant on suggestion of the existance of a bill in chancery by him against the plaintiff, for a discovery of facts material in the trial of the action, and that due diligence had been used to obtain the plaintiff's answer.
    This was án actioti of assumpsit, brought to Map 1802, and continued from the last term wader no~ iice of trial, and being now called, the plaintiff’s coun- • _ . ’ Sei insist}!)? UDOn a trial»
    
      Hey and Shaaff, for the Defendant, moved for a con- ,. ’ ‘ ‘ 5 ■ *, ‘ k '. finuance.o
    They stated? that a bill had been tiled in chancery by the defendant against the plaintiff, for a discovery of certain fapts material in the trial of this case. That due diligence had been used by the 'defendant to obtain the plaintiff’s answer to that bill, but that it bad not been obtained. They cited the case of M‘Mechen vs. M‘Lauglilin’s executor, f4 Harr. Sf. M‘Hen. 166,J where this court, upon a similar motion and suggestion, continued the cause.
    
      Martin, (Attorney General,) ffidgely and Moale, for the Plaintiff.'
   The Court.

Let the cause be continued.  