
    
      Arrington’s administrator vs. Coleman.
    
   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.  