
    Halhead versus Ross, et al.
    
    
      MOYLAN had entered a rule for trial at the last term or Non-pros. The rule being continued ’till this term, a plea was added, and particular facts referred; and upon these a report had been made a few days before the day appointed for the trial of the cause.
    
      Lewis, for the Plaintiff,
    now objected, to the trial’s coming on; and Moylan insisted that he was entitled to a Non pros.
    
   But by

M'Kean, Chief Justice

The subsequent plea and referrence virtually vacate the previous rule for trial or Non pres. The cause must, therefore, he continued under a new rule.  