
    Halsey v. Mott.
    On motion in arrest, the court will not go into an examination of the evidence at large, on which the verdict is founded.
    ActioN of book debt. The general issue pleaded — And verdict for the plaintiff.
    Mr. Huntington and Mr. Babcock, moved in arrest of judgment, alleging for cause — That the principal article in the plaintiff’s account, and that which turned the jury to find a verdict against the defendant, was a charge of £50 for a salt-work, consisting of lands, buildings, and utensils; which charge against the defendant could not legally be admitted as a pretended contract, said to be made in the year 1778, for the sale of lands and real tenements; — therefore, void, by the statute of this state, for the prevention of frauds and perjuries; and was no foundation in law whereon to warrant a judgment.
   By the whole Court.

We are not, after verdict, to go into the evidence at large. From the plaintiff’s account on file, there appears a balance in his favor, larger than the jury have found, exclusive of the article mentioned in the motion; and with, regard to tbat charge, thought it would be inadmissible as for the fee, or real estate, yet it might be good for the works, or for the use of the works.  