#### Mallett vs. London.

T'jEFEKfDANT was summoned, asa garnishee, to the county court, in a suit against one for whom he acted as agent. He gave in his garnishment, and judgment was taken against the principal; on that he particularised some bonds and referred to others, not specifying them, The specified bonds were delivered into court and produced nothing, in the mean time, London, the agent of one of the partners, both of whom were defendants, in this action, assigned the bonds referred to, to a creditor of that partner, and lately Mr. London having moved the county-court to be discharged from his garnishment; that motion was, refused and he appealed, Since the said appeal he has been, ex-é¡mined again in this court, and mentioned the said bonds specii. ally which before were not so specified ; and now the principal; question was, whether after judgment, there can be any further-examination of the garnishee.

Hall, Judge.

He did not complete his first garnishment, but; something remained to be done. — /.The second is a continuation; of the first, and as if done at the same time with the first; and aa. the second garnishment discloses property enough to satisfy the,, plaintiff’s demand there should be judgment for him.

Judgment accordingly,,.