THOMAS S. WAPLES, p. b. respondent and plaintiff in error, vs. MANAEN GUM, who was defendant below, appellant in the Sup. Court, and defendant in error, 5 Harr. 404

The Chancellor said, that before the Constitution of 1792, there was no appeal from a justice’s judgment. By that Constitution the convention to carry out the injunction that “ trial by jury shall be as heretofore,” gave the appeal and placed the case in the Superior Court, as an original case. And it is very proper that the right of appeal shall be preserved, since the enlargement of the justice’s jurisdiction. Layton, for plaintiff in error. Houston, for defendant in error. The other judges concurred in refusing the motion to dismiss the writ of error. The case was then argued by Mr.

Layton, for plaintiff in error; and Mr. Houston, for the defendant in error; and the judgment below was finally affirmed. Judgment affirmed.