
    *Dill against Wood.
    Costs were granted for not proceeding to trial according to notice, though the ' defendant’s objectionto the jury process was the reason why the cause was not brought on, the defect in the process being the consequence of a mistake of the plaintiff’s attorney.
    Bowman, for the defendant,
    moved for costs, because the plaintiff had neglected to bring the cause to trial at the last circuit, pursuant to his notice.
    
      
      Elmendorf contra,
    objected, that the reason why the cause was not tried, was, that when the cause was called; the defendant’s counsel made an objection to the jury process, which was admitted to be void.
   Per Curiam.

The defect of the jury process was owing to the mistake of the plaintiff’s attorney, and the defendant was under no obligation to come to trialon- such process, nor had the plaintiff any right to require it of him. The defendant- must take his rule.

Rule granted.  