
    APRIL TERM, 1800.
    Britt and another vs. Van Orden.
    IN this cafe a letter was fent by A. B. defendant’s attorney, in the month of November laft, informing plaintiff’s attorney, that fpecial bail was then filed ; the plaintiff relying upon this information, and not intending to objefit to the fufficiency of the bail, proceeded to enter his judgment in January Term laft ; but had difeovered fince, that bail was not entered till the 29th of January ; it further appeared that the defendant’s attorney had acknowledged in his letter, that lie was only employed to delay.
    
      Hopkins for plaintiff, now moves that the bail piece filed in J anuary be confidered as filed on the firft day of the preceding November.
    
      Woods contra.
   Per Curiam.

This was an irregularity in practice not to be countenanced. Let the plaintiff take the effefil of his motion with colts to be paid by the defendant's attorney himfelf.  