
    Clark against Belden.
    Where the a rule to amend by changing the tk”Uof trial has Sm^defendant notice ont^S céívednoticeof venuehanse °f
    ON the'first day of the last May tertn> the plaintiff obtained a rule to amend his declaration, by changing the venue from the county of Albany to the county of Oneida, and on the same day, being the 7th of May, delivered a notice of trial to the agent of the defendant’s attorney, in JTew-York, for the Oneida circuit, to be held on the eleventh day of June. A copy of the rule, and notice that the declarabon had been amended accordingly, was served on the agent of the defendant’s attorney, in Utica, on the 29th oj May. It appeared that the defendant resided above one hundred miles from the place of trial. The plaintiff’s attorney, pursuant to the notice of trial, proceeded and toojh an inquest by default, at the Oneida circuit.
    Tracy, for the defendant,
    now moved to set aside the inquest, on the ground thait notice of the amendment ant change of venue was not served on the agent twenty-eighl days before thp time of trial.
    
      
      Johnson, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The service of the notice of trial had no effect, nor was the defendant bound to take notice of it, until he had received notice of the change of venue ; and when that was, in fact, given to the agent of the defendant’s attorney, there were not twenty-eight days before the Oneida circuit. The motion is granted.

Motion granted. 
      
      
         Vide Smith v. Sharp, 13 Johns. Rep. 466. Root v. Taylor, 18 Johns. Rep. 335.
     