
    *The State against John De Hart.
    A new trial will not be granted on a motion in behalf of the state, on an indictment where there has been a verdict in favor of the defendant.
    This was an indictment, found in the Sessions of the borough of Elizabeth against the defendant,-for encroaching upon a public highway. It was brought'into this court by habeas, taken down to the circuit in Essex, for trial, and a verdict found for the defendant.
    
      Seudder,
    
    on behalf of the state, now moved for a new trial, and stated several reasons, which are unnecessary to detail.
    
      TIornblower opposed the application,
    upon the ground, that no new trial could be granted in a criminal prosecution where there was a verdict for the defendant, except in penal actions and information in the nature of quo warranto, and cited 6 East Rep. 315, The King v. Reynall.
    
    
      Seudder,
    
    in order to shew that a new trial might be granted, cited 6 Term. Rep. 619, 638, The King v. Manbey and others; 2 Term. Rep. 484; 6 Bac. Abr. 676.
   Kirkpatrick, O. J.

It never was doubted that a new trial could be granted in favor of a defendant; but no adjudged case could be found where a new trial had been granted on the part of the state, where, on an indictment, a general verdict had been rendered in favor of the defendant. In this case, cited from 6 Term Reports, the application was made by the defendants. We are all of opinion that it is contrary to practice to grant a new trial in criminal cases after a verdict for the defendant.

Buie for new trial discharged. 
      
       It if? said, that in cases of felony no new trial can he granted at all on the application of the defendants. Term Rep. 633; 3 Bl. Com. 387, no'e; 1 John. Ch. Ca. 18 But in the case of the United States v. Fries, a new trial was granted at the prayer of the defendant, on an indictment for treason. 3 Dal. 315. See also 1 Bin. 379. State v Hopkins.
      
     