Opinion
May, 1770.
For plaintiff, Messrs. Killen [and] Fisher. For defendant, Messrs. McKean [and] N. Vandyke.
On argument, defendant's counsel gave up two first pleas, and the nonage seemed to be admitted by plaintiff's counsel, who moved to be admitted to prove the defendant's having agreed at several times since he came of age to pay the debt. But on argument, Court ruled that should not be permitted, as it was no' pertinent to the issue; for the issue was not whether he did or did not owe the debt alleged in the plaintiff's declaration (which indeed was confessed by the defendant's counsel), but whether or no he was under age when the bond was given. And this determination was well supported by law, evidence foreign to the issue joined not being admissible.
On the jury's return, defendant's counsel moved that the jury should be asked how they found each issue separately, which was opposed by the plaintiff. Jury informed the Court they had not separately considered the issues. On which they were acquainted they might withdraw and consider them so, but stayed at bar. The Court took the opinion of Mr. Read (Attorney General) with respect to the propriety of the motion of the defendant's counsel. [Read] observed it was a new matter to him, but he thought the best method was to inform the jury they might find on the issues separately but in general terms, as, that they find for the plaintiff in the two first issues, and for the defendant in the third. It was ruled so to ask the jury, and their verdict was for the plaintiff in the two first issues, and for defendant in the third, jury determining on two first issues at bar.