
    [Philadelphia,
    Saturday, Jan. 4, 1812.]
    *Reinouldt against Aublai.
    When a point is reserved at the trial, the rule which requires ten days’ previous notice of a motion for a new trial, is dispensed with. But if the court merely tell the jury that they have not formed a positive opinion upon the point, though they recommend the jury to take the law as it had been urged by the one party, and if the verdict should be against the other, and he should think proper to move for a new trial, the matter may be deliberately considered in banc, in such a case notice of an intended motion is requisite.
    Upon the trial of this cause at the Nisi Prius in October last, the Chief Justice, in charging the jury upon a point of law, said that he had not formed a positive opinion, but he advised the jury to consider the law as it had been urged by the defendant, and if the plaintiff’s counsel should think proper to move for a new trial, in case the verdict should be against him, the matter might be deliberately considered in banc.
    The verdict having passed for the defendant, Shoemaker on the first day of the term moved for a new trial.
    
      PEallowell objected that the motion could not be sustained, because the rule of court required ten days’ notice previous to the term, and but seven had been given.
    
      Shoemaker contended that the manner in which a point of law had been put to the jury, was in effect a reservation of the question, which took the case out of the rule.
   Per Curiam.

The notice was not sufficient. Where a point is reserved at the trial, the notice is dispensed with. But here was no point reserved. When the Chief Justice in his charge mentioned that if the plaintiff’s counsel should think proper to move for a new trial, the matter might be considered in banc, it did not dispense with the obligation to give notice according to the rule.

Motion rejected.  