Case Name: J. and A. Hallett against J. and T. Slidell, assignees of the sheriff, &c.
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1814-01
Citations: 11 Johns. 56
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. and A. Hallett against J. and T. Slidell, assignees of the sheriff, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
J. and A. Hallett against J. and T. Slidell, assignees of the sheriff, &c.
ALBANY,
Jan. 1814.
hisrcpHcatio™ new matter to explain and Samson1; and ne^matterfc introduced he with a verification.
IN ERROR, from the mayor’s court of the city of Netv-Yorlc. an^ ^ Slidell, as assignees of the sheriff brought an action against J. and A. Hallett, in the court below, on a bail-bond, dated 28th September, 1812, taken in a suit in which the writ was returnable the third Monday of October then next. The defondants pleaded compcruit ad diem. The plaintiff replied, that after the third Monday of October, 1812, and after the forfeiture 0f the bond on which, &c. and after it was assigned to the plaintiffs, to wit, on the Oth November, 1812, the plaintiffs brought their action on the said bail-bond, &c. That by the course and practice of the mayor’s court, £ic. the appearance of any defendant, arrested on a capias and held to bail, according to the exigence of the writ, is effected by putting in, and filing in the office of the clerk of the court, special bail, in such action, within ten days inclusively after the return day of such writ, and not otherwise; and that the defendant in the original suit who was arrested and held to bail, &c. did not, within 10 days inclusively after the return day of the writ, nor before the suit was commenced by the plaintiffs in the bail-bond, put in and file special bail, &c. nor otherwise howsoever appear in the said court, &c. according to the exigence of the said writ, and according to the condition of the said bond, &c. and this they are ready to verify, &c.
To this replication the defendants demurred specially, 1. Because as the traverse in the replication denies the whole substance of the plea, the inducement to the traverse was unnecessary ; and by such useless and superfluous inducement, rendered a conclusion to the court, with a verification, requisite; and, 2. Because the inducement to the traverse, containing no new matter in itself, was immaterial, argumentative, and superfluous, and produced an unnecessary prolixity of pleading, Sec.
On this demurrer, the court below gave judgment for the plaintiffs; and a writ of error was brought to this court.
Maynard and Foot, for the plaintiffs in error.
They cited 5 Went. Pl. 463. 2 Johns. Rep. 428.
Slosson, contra.
He cited Long v. Jackson. (2 Wils. 8.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
According to Long v. Jackson, (2 Wils. 8.) the plaintiffs were authorized to introduce into their replication matter in explanation of, or to fortify, their declaration, without incurring the charge of a departure; and as they introduced new matter, to wit, the course and practice of the court as to appearance, the conclusion with a verification was proper, and the judgment below must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed'.