“This case come before the court upon two rules to show cause, 1. Why the judgment should not be arrested. And 2. Why a new trial should not be granted? 1. In support of the first rule, certain exceptions were taken to the second, third, fourth and fifth additional counts in the declaration. We shall direct our attention principally to the fourth count, because this was the one which the counsel seemed to consider the most faulty. It states; ‘that the defendant being on the 1st of November 1809, at Philadelphia, indebted to the plaintiff on a certain bill of exchange, of which the defendant was the drawer, in the sum of $600, he then and there averred to the plaintiff that he was then not able to pay the said bill, but promised the plaintiff that if he would grant to the defendant indulgence, in time he the defendant would pay to the plaintiff the amount of said bill, whenever he the defendant should be able to pay the same; and the plaintiff avers that he did grant a reasonable indulgence in time to the defendant; and further, that at the time this action was brought, the defendant was able, and had the means to pay the said bill, but that he had nevertheless refused to pay the same,’ &c.”