| Pa. | Apr 15, 1788
considered the whole proceedings to have been irregular; but said, that there could be no doubt of the sufficiency of the second reason alone, as a ground for setting them aside. And the Judgment was accordingly reversed.
considered the whole proceedings to have been irregular; but said, that there could be no doubt of the sufficiency of the second reason alone, as a ground for setting them aside. And the Judgment was accordingly reversed.