
    Levant versus Rogers.
    Rarol testimony is inadmissible to prove the allegation of a plea in abatement, that after an appeal had been taken, the writ had been altered, without leave of court.
    Debt, brought before a justice of the peace.
    In the District Court, the defendant pleaded in abatement, that since the appeal was taken, the plaintiff, without leave of court and without motion therefor, had inserted in the writ the words, “now commorant of Levant in said county.” The plaintiff’s replication traversed the allegation of the plea, and tendered an issue to the country. The defendant offered to prove, by parol, the allegation of the plea. The District Judge, Hathaway, rejected the evidence. The verdict was for plaintiff, and the defendant excepted.
   Curia.

The parol proof was properly rejected. Copies, authenticated by the justices, were the only admissible evidence. Such copies were introduced by the plaintiff. They were conclusive. Exceptions overruled.  