Per Curiam, delivered by Livingston, J. The defendant moves to set aside the report of referees, alleging. 1. That it was agreed by the plaintiff’s attorney, that no report should be made until the defendant’s witnesses could be procured, which was afterwards disregarded. This agreement not being in writing, and being denied by the plaintiff’s attorney must be laid out of sight. The court cannot, too frequently inculcate the necessity of reducing to writing all agreements between gentlemen of the bar. Many mistakes, much misunderstanding and controversy will, by this measure, be avoided.

In the present case it appears that two months elapsed before the report was made, which was allowing sufficient time for the defendant to produce his witnesses. If they were abroad, he might have applied to the court, (for a term intervened between the appointment and report of the referees) for an order on them not to proceed for a reasonable time, which would have been granted, or it judge at his chambers would have ordered the proceedings to stay until application should be made to the court. 2. Another objection is, that a sum was allowed, which was not proved to be due.

Of this allegation there is no satisfactory proof, and therefore we can take no notice of it. 3. A third objection is, an enmity between the defendant and one of the referees. This reference, it is to be observed, was nominated by the defendant’s attorney, and although he might have been ignorant of the quarrel spoken of, the defendant, by his acquiescence in the appointment, and submitting the cause to his decision, cannot now avail himself of this challenge. He should have applied to the court to remove him and appoint another.

It is somewhat remarkable, however, that the referee who is repugnant or hostile to the defendant, should be his special bail in this very cause. 4. The defendant states, that “ he can now intro-(t duce evidence to diminish at least the damages re- “ ported.” This is very loose, to say the least. Why , was not this testimony obtained before ? And to what extent will the damages be reduced, if it be offered now ? Will it justify a diminution of only one dollar or less ? If so “ de minimis non curat lex” and if the discovery had been made even prior to the J * report, it would be no reason for disturbing it.

Let the defendant take nothing by his motion and pay the costs of this application.