Thought the objection a sound one, and that the testimony could not be received.

— Was of opinion, that the objection ought to be over-ruled and the testimony admitted.

— Said that he had understood the law to be settled, that whenever the actual time of suing out the writ became material, it might be shewn in contradiction to the fictitious test of the writ; which for form sake, only had relation to the preceding term,* and that in the present case, the demandant had been under necessity of pleading it, it was not made necessary by the pleadings of the tenant.

[*] Mr. Leake. — íf I had so plead, I should have plead very ignorantly.

— I did not say it was necessary or proper, for you to plead in that manner; but I think the evidence admissible without pleading; the question arises collaterally on trial. — Objection over-ruled.

The attorney being sworn, proved satisfactorily that the writ was not sued out until the latter part of August, 1806.

Mr. Leake then contended, that our act of Assembly had no relation to dower, but was an abstract of the statute of 6 Jinn, Chap. 18, which only had relation to guardian, trustees, remainder men, &c.

The Court was of opinion, that there was no similarity between the two acts; that the one was not founded on the other, or abstracted from it, and concurred in rendering

Judgment for the defendant.