Ricup versus Bixter, et al.

Ricup versus Bixter, et al. THE defence set up in his action was a tender of continental money, in 1783. As the proof respecting the date of the bills was not clear, the defendant’s counsel contended, that by the act of 3d April, 1781, no more could be recovered than the value of the money tendered, reduced by the scale at the time of tender; and this, whether the bills were of an early, or late, date. 1 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 880. Tried at Berks, Nisi Prius, before Shippen and Bradford Justice, in October, 1791. [MAJORITY — hippen, Justice,] hippen, Justice, in his charge to the Jury, held, that the act of 1781 did not apply to this case. That it is an ex-post facto act, and should be construed strictly; and though the legislature may may have given certain powers to Auditors (who seem to be a Court of Chancery, and can apply themselves to the conscence of the party) yet we are not to extend it further. A Jury has not in all respect the powers of these Auditors; and in the case of reduced, payments, though Auditors are restricted, yet Courts, and general referrees, have always gone on the general justice of the case. It would be a hard construction to carry it beyond the words. Verdict for the Plaintiff.