
    Stearnes against Richmond.
    Where after the trial of a cause and a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial; motions were drawn by counsel on both sides and handed to the judge, who, not being satisfied with either, requested one of the defendant’s counsel to draw another, which he did; the judge was not satisfied with this, but allowed it de bene esse, and, after the close of the term and the adjournment of the court, wrote to the plaintiff’s counsel, enclosing the one last mentioned, and requesting them to make one accord- . ing to the facts in the case and return it, with the one enclosed; it was held, that no motion was completed and allowed according to law, and the case was erased from the docket.
    This was an action for a libel, tried at Tolland, October term, 1830, before Peters, J. The plaintiff obtained a verdict; and the defendant moved for a new trial. A ¡notion was accordingly drawn, by his counsel, and another by the counsel for the plaintiff: both of which were banded to the judge. But not being satisfied with either, he requested Mr. Child, one of the defendant’s counsel, to draw another “ a little more like the ease tried.” Mr. GJvild then handed to the judge er ; but this was not perfectly satisfactory. It being then near the dose of the term and of the week, the judge allowed one of the motions de bene- esse, and the court being adjourned, returned to Hartford. On the 30th of October, he wrote to Messrs. Goddard and Strong, of counsel for the plaintiff, stating these circumstances, enclosing the motion drawn by Mr. Child, and requesting them to make one according to the facts in the case, and return it to him with that enclosed, as soon as should be convenient. He added: “As we may expect a hearing before the Supreme Court of Errors, before the motion is finally settled, 1 hope you will not only be careful to state the case fairly and fully, but preserve in your memory and minutes a knowledge of the case. All 1 wish is, to have the case go up fairly ; though time and reflection have not created a doubt of the correctness of tny decision.” Nothing furthepwas done until the the term of this Court, at Tolland, in August, 1831, when
    
      Goddard and Strong, for the plaintiff,
    objected to the Court’s receiving any motion for a new trial, on the ground that none had been completed and allowed by the judge, during the term at which the cause was tried, pursuant to the statute, approved June 3rd, 1830. s. 2. 
    
    
      Willey and J. W. Huntington, contra.
    
      
       The 2nd section of the statute referred to, provides, “ That every motion for a new trial, shall be completed, and a rule to shew cause granted, by the judge trying the cause, during the term at which said motion is filed, and before the adjournment of the court.” Stat. ml. 2, p. 288.
    
   Per Curiam.

(Peters, X giving no opinion.) The motion was not completed and allowed according to law. There is no motion before the Court; — nothing which can be amended.

Let the case be erased from the docket.

Case erased from the docket.  