
    Matthias Williamson against James Brown.
    If from a judgment rendered by a justice in favor of a defendant, tlio plaintiff appeals, and on the trial of the appeal submit the cause to a jury, he cannot, by voluntarily withdrawing or neglecting to appear when called, obtain a non-suit, or prevent a verdict being rendered against him.
    M. Williamson brought an action in a plea of debt, against James Brown, before a justice of the peace. Brown filed an account by way of set off. On the trial, a verdict was found in favor of Brown for a certain sum, for which, with costs, judgment was rendered. Williamson appealed ; and in the Court of Common Pleas, the jury, after having heard the cause and withdrawn for a time, returned into court to rénder their verdict. Williamson did not appear, but the court received the verdict, which was again in favor of Brown, and rendered judgment upon it.
    
      
      Seudder moved to reverse this judgment.
    He contended that Williamson had a legal right to withdraw, and of his own choice to submit to a non-suit; and that the court, instead of receiving the verdict, should have dismissed the jury and rendered judgment of non-suit.
    
      John J. Chetwood, contra, relied on Reed v. Rocap, 4 Halst. 347.
   By the Court.

Although not precisely the same in point of fact, this case is within the principles on which the decision was made in Reed v. Rocap.

Let the judgment be affirmed.  