
    Hall against Coe.
    In an action p”sec™tioi?°bi a neighboring plaintiff may !ay hls V011"° m any county of this state, Siere^on'stipulating to give material cvihfuw county lí1,ere j* Í3 laid, though the defendant n3>cr ffwit?es“s ^siding to vvhich™he tho nue.
    thtu^th‘S’the ?ause of action m another count, in tro^ola*a! ti°n, arose in which°Unty he ™ovcs , t0
    P. S. Parker, moved to change the venue from the county of Chenango to the county of Steuben. He read an affidavit of the defendant, stating that the declaration consisted of two counts—the first in trover—the second for a malicious prosecution. That the cause of action in the first count arose in the county of Steuben, &c. and that in the second count in the state of Pennsylvania, &c. That the defendant had 12 witnesses residing in Steuben, &c.
    
      J Platt, contra, would not enter the lists as to the nunber of witnesses; but though the cause of action in the first ' count arose m Steuben, that m the second arose in Pennsylvania.
    Being for a malicious prosecution, and sounding in tort, it did not come within the rule that the number of witnesses is to control; but had the cause of action arisen in Chenango, the plaintiff might have retained the venue by stipulating to give material evidence arising in that county,
    He submitted, whether it was not the same thing here. The cause of action arose, it is true, in Pennsylvania: but . . . ’ this entitles the plaintiff to fay his venue m any county in the state, and to retain it, upon the fiction that the cause of action arose there, provided he will stipulate. This stipulation will be satisfied by proof that the cause of action arose in a foreign country. (Gerard v. De Robeck, 1 H.Bl.280.)
   Curia.

Retain your venue, on stipulating to give material evidence arising in the county of Chenango.

Platt expressing his willingness to do this,

Rule accordingly.  