
    In the Case of Timothy Brush.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    One who has been arrested on a ea. res. and permitted by sheriff to go at large, is not “ in confinement for debt” within the moaning of the insolvent law.
    The case, as stated by the judges, and returned with the certiorari, was that Timothy Brush had been arrested on a 
      capias ad respondendum, and in January, 1796, received permission from the plaintiff in the suit and the sheriff, to go at large, being merely directed to attend occasionally at court. Under this permission he remained at large and pursued his business.
    An act of assembly was passed 17th March, 1796, for the relief of insolvent debtors, and under the words of this act the benefits of it were extended to all persons “ now in confinement ■for debt,” &c. The question before the court was, whether -Brush was in actual confinement for debt within the meaning of the act ?
    The case was argued by R. Stockton, against the discharge, and Frelinghuysen, for it.
   Per Curiam.

This was not such a confinement as was intended by the act, which was meant to be a confinement in gaol. Brush was not an object of the law, and the proceedings must therefore be quashed.

Proceedings quashed.  