Damages in each case separately and were on said 1[st] of March 1845 discharged by the Court in said cause and the said verdict duly recorded and after a motion for a new trial &c and reasons filed the Jury were against consent of the defendants collected and called together again by the 5[th] of March 1845 on motion of Plaintiffs and by order of the Court and instructed to separate their verdict and find the damages in each case when they found $205 in this case and $ 1295 in the other which proceeding was irregular and illegal and said verdict void.
4. Because the said damages were and are unreasonable and excessive.
5. Because the defendant was surprised on the trial as his counsel in the original cases of attachment and who brought the same W. Baltzell was absent and his defence was conducted by oher counsel who were not as well acquainted with the facts of his case as Mr. Baltzell
6. Because said defendant hath newly discovered evidence towit that the Plaintiff after the levy of the attachment in the original case retained possession of the property levied on and used the same and with the burned brick built a house or a part thereof and used or sold the others
7. Because the Verdict is otherwise against law and evidence
Plaintiffs Counsel moved the Court that the Jury might be collected & recalled & instructed by the Court to amend their Verdict by apportioning the damages