
    Pumpelly against Crosby and others.
    A general rcyiication to a spedal plea need counselS.'Sned by
    SHERWOOD, for the defendants, moved to set aside . . , , . . . an inquest, taken at the last circuit m Tioga county, and all subsequent proceedings, for irregularity. He cited 5 Johns. Rep. 235, 236. 2 Wils. 74.
    
    
      . The irregularity-relied upon, was the want of the name of counsel to the replication. The plea was a special plea of payment to the holder and payee of a promissory note, before it was endorsed tp the plaintiff; and a general replication, denying the payment.
    
      II. Bleecker, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The motion must be denied. The case of Simson v. Neal, (2 Wils. 47.) on which the defendants’ counsel relies, has been overruled in the case of Hubert v. Lord Weymouth, (2 Black. Rep. 816.) and there can be no more reason for requiring the signature of counsel to a general replication than to a general plea. When the replication consists in a mere denial of the plea, without alleging any new matter therein, it need not be signed by counsel. This appears to be the settled practice of the court of K. B. (Sellon, 327. Impey’s K. B. Prac. 263.)

Motion denied,.  