
    WALLACE vs. WIER.
    
      Sci. Fa. against Margaret Wier, wife of Joseph Wier, to shew cause why she should not pay the forfeiture, for failing to attend as a witness upon subpoena.
    Oyer of the sci. fa. Demurrer and joinder.
    The Demurrer contained three objections.
    1st. The plaintiff was an infant, and should sue by prochan amy.
    
    2nd. The defendant a feme covert, should have been joined with her husband.
    3d. The amount of the forfeiture did not appear in the subpoena.
    In a sci. fa, against a femecovert, to recover a forfeiture for not attending as a witness, her husband must be joined with her.
    Wilkinson, in support of the demurrer,
    cited 1, Bac. Dub. Ed. 1793, 294, 307, tit. Baron & Feme. 4. Bac. 499. tit. sci. fa.
    
      Parsons e contra,
    
    relied upon the case of the state vs. Cross in this court. In that case there was a demurrer, and the court decided, they would not look out of the demurrer, into the recognisance, to see if there was a variance. So in this the court will not look out of the sci. fa. of which alone the defendant has craved oyer.
   Per Curiam.

The case of the state vs. Cross, does not apply. That case was a sci. fa. upon a forfeited recognisance, The defendant without craving oyer, or setting forth any part of the record, demurred, and shewed for cause, a variance between the recognisance, and sci. fa. the court determined as the defendant did not crave oyer, so as to point out the variance in his pleading, they were not authorised to look themselves for the variance, and upon that ground overruled the demurer.

In the case before the court oyer is craved, and the sci. fa. is set out in the demurrer, from which it appears, that the defendant ought to have been joined with her husband, and for this cause the demurrer was sustained.  