
    Henry against Kennedy.
    
      Monday, December 26th.
    The rule of this court re quiring ten (lays’ notice in writing be-term, of an intended motion for a new trial, in causes tried at nisi prius, applies to causes tried at nisi prius in the county of Philadelphia.
    
    r T YHE plaintiff obtained a verdict in this cause on the 16th November last, at a nisi prius for the county of Philadelphia; and on this day, Dallas for the defendant, moved for a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial; the verdict having been in direct opposition to the charge of his Honour; judge Yeates, upon the law. J ° 1
    
      PP Shane and Tod, for the plaintiff,
    contended that the mo- . ,, . . . ~ . . . . . tion could not be received, no notice ot it m writing having been given ten days before the commencement of the term, ac- ,. cording to rule 34 of this court.
    
      Dallas
    
    answered, that he had given parol notice of his intended motion in proper time, and had entered a memorandum of it upon his notes. That this was sufficient in causes tried in Philadelphia, as the rule was made when courts of nisi prius were held in all the counties, and was merely intended to guard against surprise or inconvenience when the cause was tried at a distance. But
   Per Curiam.

The rule contains no such distinction. The parol notice will not answer; and therefore the motion cannot be admitted.

Motion rejected.  