
    Heyers vs. Denning.
    IN this ciufc the plaintiff had proceeded to out-Iawry. when he received a notice of retainer from S. S. for defendant, who, in his notice figned for or on behalf of defendant, and faid verbally, that he did not mean to appear as attorney. At the la ft term S. had obtained a rule that all proceedings íhould be fet a fide; but no bail had been entered.
    
      Jones for plaintiff moved to vacate the rule, which was fo obtained, on the ground that the interference by S. was irregular.
   Per Curiam.

S — , appearing in the manner he did, muí! be confideted as a mere ftranger, and could not take any rule in the caufe. The defendant has neither appeared in perfon, nor by attorney, nor entered bail; therefore all the proceedings muft be fet afide. And the Court, confider-ing it as improper praftice in any attorney to attempt to appear as agent, but not as attorney, add, that S. himfelf pay the coils.  