
    Lessee of Neff against Neff.
    
      Wednesday, April 6th.
    It is not necessary to entitle a party to a special jury that tlie attorneyshould certify that it is not intended for delay. There is no time limited within which a party must apply for a special jury.
    THIS was a motion by Rush and Hopkinson for the defendant, to remove this cause from the general to the special jury list, although it had been more , than three years at issue. They relied on the acts of Assembly 2 St. Laws 267.691., which entitle parties to a special jury, and put no limit to the time of applying for it; and also on a case between Hall and Vandegrift at the last term, in which the court allowed the change to be made, after the cause had been several years on the general jury list. It was essential they said in this case, because the controversy had interested a large community, and it was highly probable from the mode of returning a general jury, the defendant might have on the pannel some of his decided opponents.
    
      
      Wallace
    
    opposed the motion on this ground, that the agreement of the attornies of this Court, which had been made a rule of the court, demanded as a prerequisite to a special jury, that the attorney should certify it was not intended for delay.' It was true that no affidavit of defence was required by law in an action of ejectment, but the certificate was an independent matter. Here delay would be the consequence from the known state of the special jury list, the defendant had been negligent in not making an earlier application, and there was no certificate.
   Per Curiam.

The certificate is not required by the act of Assembly, and the rights of the parties are to be tested by that. The lav/ limits no time for an application of this kind, and as the court thought proper to allow it in the case alluded to, it is essential to uniformity of decision that the motion should be granted.  