
    Welsh against Hill.
    ded, should charged on filing common hail,the affidavit of the debt, the'jdahuiff, UvXotherwL the court win order the defondant to t>c Counter afliidavits may be ^ discretion-of a judge,’at ins chambers. On showing cause why a defendant who
    The defendant obtained a'n order from a judge, at his chambers, for the plaintiff to show cause why the defendant should not be discharged on filing common bail. — - The plaintiff resided at Havanna. The authority of the attorney to commence the suit was shown ; the letters of J ■ . the plaintiff, stating the nature of his demand against the defendant, were produced, and also an affidavit of a correspondent here of the consignee of the plaintiff, stat-that in a conversation with the defendant relative to ° the subject matter in dispute, the defendant said he would remit the money or property to the consignee, but there was n0 eXpVess admission of á debt due the rjlaintiff, though the defendant did not deny it. Some counter af-fidavifs were also offered. The judge refused to grant ^ or(jerj an¿ an application was now made to the court for the defendant’s discharge.
    
      Hoffman and T. A. Emmett, for the defendant.
    
      Slosson and Tloplcins, for the plaintiff.
   Per Curiam.

The affidavit of Post, the correspondent of the house in England, is not positive. He does not swear that he believes any thing due to the plaintiff.—

These affidavits are insufficient, and the defendant must be discharged on filing common bail. As to receiving counter affidavits in such cases, the practice was settled in the case of Clason v. Lyde, in April term, 1801, where the court decided, that a judge at his chambers might, in his discretion, admit or refuse counter affidavits, according to circumstances. Where the plaintiff swears positively to a debt, it would be improper to receive them.

Rule granted.  