
    Penman et al. versus Wayne.
    
      THIS cause came again before the Court, in consequence of the former decision, that, on the rule to shew cause why the writ should not be quashed, “ the Defendant may controvert the fact of his not being resident in the State for two years next before the writ issued,” which was stated in the deposition filed on the part of the Plaintiff, in order to ground a Capias against him, notwithstanding his being a freeholder. See ant 241.
    
      Sergeant now produced an additional affidavit, setting forth, that the Defendant had left this State, and resided in Georgia (where he had a considerable property) for upwards of fifteen months, next before the writ issued.
    In opposition to which Lewis examined a witness, who proved that the Defendant had a real estate in Chester county, whereon his wife and several children constantly resided; that he had expressed an intention of selling his property in Georgia; that he never meant permanently to reside there, but went thither upon particular business; and that as soon as that was transacted he designed to return to his estate and family in Pennsylvania.
    
   The Court

were unanimously and clearly of opinion, that, upon these circumstances, the Defendant ought to be considered as a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and was entitled to his privilege as a freeholder.

Whereupon the rule to shew cause why the writ should not be quashed, was made absolute.  