#### Allen’s Ex’rs. v. Montfort Stokes.

A plea to tlie juris liction of the Court under the act of 1793 Rev• c. 392, is to be decided as to the amount for which the suit is brought, only by the writ and declaration.

Debt. The bond was foe one hundred pounds, but reduced by payments, as the Defendant aliedged, to about thirty .pounds; he pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court according to the act of 1793, c. 19, which directs that from and after the passing of this act, no suit, shall he originally commenced in any of the Superior Courts in this State for any debt or demaud of less value than one hundred pounds, where the Plaintiff and Defendant lived in the same district; or ¡for less than fifty pounds, where the parties lived in different districts; and if any suit shall be commenced contrary to the true intent and meaning hereof, or if any person shall demand a greater smn than is due, on purpose to evade this act; in either case, the Plaiafiff shall be non-suited and pay costs : and the Defendant set forth in his plea, that the real and true demand of the Plaintiff was of less value than fifty pounds ; to which plea there was a replication and issue* .El per curiam, Judge A~he and Judge Wiuiams — This is an issue to be determined by the Court, and that, the writ and declaration was proof of the amount of the Plaintiff's demand, and as the sum demanded in the Writ and declaration was above the sum of fifty pounds, they ordered a respondeas ouster. Quere de hoc.

Note. — Vide Sur. Part. of McNaugton & Co. v. Hunter, post 454. Bell v. Bell, 1 Mur. 95. McGhee v. Draughon & Jordan, 2 Car. Luw Rep. 260.