
    Reynolds against Manning.
    The defendant having been arrested, toU th“ Sheriff for a debt from which his person had been discharged, under the statute, &c. moved to be discharged on Comnrffin bail, which was refused, because case 7 fraud was made out against him by affidavit.
    In assumpsit, the defendant had been arrested without action, under the “ act to abolish imprisonment for debt in . an7 previous order, and had given bail to the Sheriff; and m°ti°n was to discharge him on common hail, because he. had obtained bis discharge from the debt claimed in this certain cases,” passed April 7,1819. (Vid. sess. 42, ch. 101.) And this was opposed by an affidavit, shewing certain facts, wh-ch amounted, prima, facie, to evidence of fraud in obtaining the discharge ; and
   Per Curiam.

For that reason we deny the motion,

Motion denied. 
      
      
         And so note the difference, between a discharge under this, and the two-third act;. The latter is considered conclusive, as will be seen in Reed v. Gordon & Wallock, (ante 50.) The English rule, as mentioned (ante 50, n. (a) seems, by this decision, to apply in case of a discharge under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt.
      
     