The COURT, in the charge, directed the jury, in point of law, to confine the responsibility of the sureties, to a deficit occurring during the year, ensuing the date of the bond. But if, from the evidence, they were satisfied, that there was a deficit, during that year, they thought, that a verdict should be in favour of the commonwealth for the amount.
Verdict for the defendants.
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
