
    HARTLEY v. BEAN.
    April 9, 1836.
    
      Rule to show cause why the plaintiff should not pay double costs on the appeal.
    
    In replevin, where the defendu\t his hvowed tV rent m nrrear. evA the^e has been an award of arbitrators, uruhn sm- < -t 3"10, in lavour oí the avowant, the plaintiff, on appeal, is not compelled to pay double costs.
    THIS was an action of teplev in. The defendant avowed for rent in arrear. There was an award of mbitraiois under the act of IS10, in favour of the avowant. The plnintitT appealed. The defendant then obtained a rule on the plain';tf to show cause why (lie plaintiff should not pay double costs on the appeal,
    
      Bradford, in support of the rale,
    tefeired to the JOfh section of the act of assembly of the 21st of March 1“72, míame >o disties-es for rent, (Purd. Dig. 783, edit, of 1S3U) and to ¡he 10th, 11th and 12th sections of the “act regulating atbitnuions" of the 20th of March 1810. Purd. Dig. 48.
    
      Randall, contra,
    
   Pettit, President,

referred to his manuscript note of the cose of Wilson r. Wyeth el ah, in this court, determined on the 51h day of June 1833, in which, upon an appeal from the ptothonotaiyY taxation of costs, it had been ruled that double costs wete nut required on the appeal, under similar eucumsutnees. He said that the court now adhered to that decision, and considered the pi artice as settled in conformity with it; that the 10th section of the act of 1772 evidently contemplated the recovery by the defendant of doable costs of suit when the judgment was a final one; that the language of the act of 1810 was satisfied by the payment., at the time of the appeal, of the costs which bad then actually accrued, and was to be construed liberally in favour of the constitutional right of trial by jury.

Rule discharged.  