
    * [Philadelphia, December 14, 1837.]
    BROMLEY against JOSEPH.
    The Court quashed a capias issued upon an affidavit made by the plaintiff in the ease, setting forth the cause of action, and stating that the defendant told him about three weeks before, that he intended to quit the Commonwealth, and, as the deponent believed, without leaving sufficient real or personal estate, &e., although an affidavit was filed at the same time, made by a person in the employment of the plaintiff, stating, in express terms, that the defendant was about to quit the Commonwealth, without leaving sufficient real or personal estate, &c.
    
      A rule having been obtained to show cause why the capias issued in the above case should not be quashed, it appeared that two affidavits had been filed before the issuing of the writ. One of them, made by the plaintiff, sot forth his cause of action, and concluded as follows:
    “This deponent also declares, that the said defendant told this deponent, about three weeks since, that he intended to quit the Commonwealth, and, as the deponent believes, without leaving sufficient real or jersonal estate therein to satisfy the demand of the plaintiff.”
    The other a .xdavit was made by one Jervis, who stated at the commencement of it, that he had been in the employ of the plaintiff, who was a manufacturer, between one and two years; and after detailing the circumstances which gave rise to the action, concluded in the following words:
    “ This deponent also declares, that the said defendant is about to quit the Commonwealth, without leaving sufficient real or personal estate therein to satisfy the demand of the above-named plaintiff.”
    Mr. U. M. Phillips
    
    now contended that the affidavits were insufficient, under the fourth section of the act of 13th June, 1836, which provides that “no writ of capias ad respondendum shall issue in any case, unless the plaintiff, his agent or attorney, shall previously -thereto make affidavit, forth—
    
      First. The cause of action, and the amount in which the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, or the value of the property taken or drained, or the damages sustained, as the case may be, to the best of the and belief.
    
      Second. That to the best of the and
      
       belief, *the defendant is not an inhabitant of this Conwealth; or if such inhabitant, that he has no place of residence therein, to the knowledge of the deponent, or that he is about to quit the Commonwealth, without leaving sufficient real or personal estate therein to satisfy the demand.”
    Here the plaintiff’s affidavit does not come up to the requisitions of the law; and that of Jervis cannot be admitted to supply the defect. He cited the case of Diehl v. Perie, 
       (stated in 1st Troubat & Haly’s Practice, p. 175,) where the District Court of Philadelphia held that the word or in the act of 1836, must be construed and; so that an affidavit, concluding .to the best of the deponent’s knowledge or belief, was insufficient. He also cited Boyer v. M‘Culloh, (1 Penn. Rep. 421); Potts v. Crabb, (2 Wharton’s Rep; 181); Jewell v. Hoar. (3 Watts, 144); Whitehill v. Bank, (1 Watts, 396); Boas v. Nagle, (3 Serg. & Rawle, 250.)
    Mr. Senderson, contra,
    
    contended that the two affidavits made together a sufficient foundation for the capias.
    
    
      
       Incorrectly printed or in the Act.
    
    
      
       Reported 2 Miles, 47.
    
   The Court quashed the writ, on the ground that the affidavit of the plaintiff was insufficient, and that the other deponent was not such an agent as the act of assembly contemplated.

Capias quashed.  