
    BAYON vs. RIVET.
    Ifa jury be prayed below the fact shall not be tried by the Court, above.
    TH E defendant, in the Court below, had prayed for a jury, judgment was had against him, and he appealed: the plaintiff filed the common answer to the petition for the appeal, "that there is no er ror," &c. and now the defendant insisted on the cause being tried by a jury.
    Gilbert, for the plaintiff.
    No jury was prayed for in this Court. The cause is to be tried de novo: a jury, therefore, ought to be asked, or the trial will be by the Court.
    Hopkins, for the defendant.
    The act of 1807, ch. l, s. 20, directs that, on the appellee answering the petition for the appeal, by a declaration in writing that there is not any error in theproceed-ings below, the Superior Court shall proceed to hear the cause, on the pleadings transmitted from the Parish Court. The answer below is, then, emphatically the answer above. In this case it prays for a trial by jury: it was useless to repeat the prayer in the petition for the appeal.
   By the Gourt.

We would always lean in ta vor of an application, for a trial of a matter of fact by a jury. In this case, the applicant has been guilty of no latches.

Motion allowed.  