
    Osborn v. Lloyd.
    A plaintiff may alter Ins reply to a plea in abatement put in in tlie County Court.
    Where neither plaintiff nor defendant belong to this state, and neither person or property are attached and holden here, the court -will not sustain jurisdiction.
    Action on book demanding £200; a copy was left with of in Fairfield county, as agent, factor and trustee to said Lloyd.
    Plea in abatement — That at the date and impetration of the plaintiffs writ, the plaintiff and defendant were both inhabitants of the said city of Yew York; and that the defendant hath there a plentiful estate; that the articles charged in the plaintiffs book are all of more than six years’ standing; and by a Statute of Limitation of the state of Eew York, they are outlawed.
    To this.plea a reply was made in the County Court, and judgment thereon; and the cause appealed, and now the plaintiff moved for liberty to alter his reply to the plea in abatement.
   And

by the Court.

Liberty is given to alter his reply; he then replied that at the time of contracting said debt both the parties lived in the state of Connecticut. Demurrer.

It appeared upon inspection, that the defendant was not described as an; absent absconding debtor; which only could enable the plaintiff to sustain this action, the defect was admitted to be fatal and judgment was, that the reply was insufficient.  