he may sue in that court. But when, he relies upon documentary
or other evidence which, the justice cannot adjudicate upon, an-
other tribunal must be resorted to. Hill v. Carter et al.
87
5, On the question of the justice's jurisdiction, and the mode
of conducting a trial, the act commonly called the "timber act,”
Rev. Laws, 700, and the Small Cause" Act, Rev. Laws, 629,
id. 639, section 1, 35, 34, 35, are to be construed together. lb.
6, The writ of attachment, in debt, is a proceeding in rem,
and the service of it on defendant's property, gives the court ju-
risdiction to proceed in the cause. Thompson v. Eastburn, 100
7, The Orphans' court, under the act regulating voluntary as-
signments for the benefit of creditors, Feb. 1820, has no juris-
diction of the proceedings, until after payment of dividends, up-
on the claims settled by the Common Pleas. The Orphans' Court
is then to settle the final accounts of the assignees. Eakin v.
Clement's assignees,
8, A claim to the right of way, is not within the jurisdiction
of a justice of the peace. Randolph v. Montfort,
9, The act of 1797, (Rev. Laws, 309,) to prevent suits under
a certain sum, being brought in this court, does not, as respects
costs, repeal or modify the act of 1774, for the more speedy re-
covery of legacies. Meeker v. Arrowsmith,
230
10, The decision in the case of Woodruff v. Woodruff, Penn.
R. 552, as to the jurisdiction of the small cause court, in suits for
legacies to the amount of one hundred dollars, questioned -
11, The Corporation of New Brunswick city, have no power
under their charter, to create an action of debt, or confer by or
dinance, judicial power on their officers. Weeks v. Forman, city
Treasurer,
12, The language in the Charter making the city magistrates,
"justices of the peace, ex officio," gives them no power to enter-
tain or try actions of debt. An ordinance giving such power, is
void, quo ad hoc.
1, A trial by jury is not allowable on an information and con-
plaint for profane swearing. Johnson v. Barclay,
2, The court should charge the jury upon a question of law,
when requested. Linn et al. v. Ross,
S, If justice is done by a verdict, a misdirection to them by a
judge, is no ground for a new trial. P. and K. Turnpike Co. v.
Gulick et al.
4, An appeal in which a jury trial has been demanded, cannot
be dismissed or tried by a jury at a special term for trying ap-
peals, notwithstanding any rule of the courts of Common Pleas
to the contrary. Ten Eyck v. Farlee,
5, A waiver of trial by jury, on appeal, must be express.-
6, The jury trying a complaint of forcible entry and detainer,
&c. must be charged by the court. Boylston v Valentine
et al.
7, Rule for a struck jury, discharged, the venue having been
changed, since the rule was entered, to Mercer County, which
had no sheriff. Anonymous,
8, A jury ought not to be discharged by a justice of the peace,
until every reasonable hope of their agreeing on a verdict, has
vanished. Gulick v Van Tilburgh,
9, A justice of the peace ought not to impose a fine upon a
non-attending juror, without first giving him, personally or in
writing, a reasonable notice to appear and shew cause, if any he
have, why he should not be fined. The State v Hollinshead, 539
10, An execution for collecting such fine, should not authorize
the taking the body for want of goods.
11, A joint conviction of two or more defaulting jurors, is il-
legal, and should not be made part of the record in the civil suit
in which they were summoned.
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
1, The refusal of a justice of the peace, to charge a jury on a
question of law, is error. Linn et al. v Ross,
2, Action lies against a justice for deceitfully concealing the
fact of his rendering judgment against a defendant, and thereby
preventing his appeal. Neighor v Trimmer,
3, Semb. that a justice of the peace may issue a warrant in ac-
tions for tort. Ib.
4, A scire facias to revive a judgment of J P must be issued
by him and no other justice. Tindall v Carson,
See AFFIDAVIT, 3, 8.
5, Judgment reversed because the justice adjourned the cause
for his own convenience, beyond thirty days. Judgment as to
costs, reversed, because it was entered in figures. Lloyd v.
Hance,
6, A justice of the peace has not jurisdiction to try a right of
way. Randolph v. Montfort,
7, The decision in the case of Woodruff v. Woodruff, Penn.
R., 552, as to the jurisdiction of a justice of the Peace to try ac-
tions for legacies to the amount of one hundred dollars, question-
ed.
lb.
8, A justice of the peace cannot for his own convenience, be-
fore the summons is returned, adjourn a cause. Nicholson v.
Wright,
9, The charter of the city of New Brunswick, declaring, the
city magistrates to be justices of the peace ex-officio, gives them no
power to try actions of debt.
An ordinance giving them such
power, is void, quo ad hoc. Weeks v. Forman, city treasurer
&c.
10, A justice of the peace cannot issue execution nor render
judgment on an attachment superseded by one from a higher
court, even after the latter is quashed. Brown v. Abbot; $19
11, A justice of the peace cannot be a witness in his own
court, nor act officially upon his own knowledge of a fact, as ev-
idence in a case before him. Corlies v. Van Note,
12, A justice of the peace should charge a jury if requested, on
a trial of complaint of unlawful detainer. Reading the statute
to them, is not giving a charge. Boylston v. Valentine et al. 346
13, A justice of the peace may, without notice to a defendant,
issue execution on a judgment in his absence, if sued by sum-
mons; upon being satisfied, of danger of losing the money by
delay. Shay v. Norton,
14, The justice must be satisfied of the danger and so record
it. The plaintiff's affidavit of his belief of the danger, is not se
ipso sufficient. Ib.
15, The execution in such case, must be applied for on the day
of rendition of the judgment. If applied for and issued after-
wards, and before the time of delay allowed to a freeholder, it
is error. Eddy v. Williamson,
16, A justice of the peace should not discharge a jury, until-
every reasonable hope of their agreeing on a verdict has van-
ished. Gulick v. Vantilburgh,
17, When he has in such case dismissed the jury, he has no
authority to grant a new trial. Ib
18, The Supreme court will not rule a justice of the peace to
return a certiorari, or show cause against an attachment &c, un
less it appears by affidavit or some other satisfactory manner,
that the suit was delivered to him, and that he has been applied
to, in reasonable time for his return, and neglects to deliver it.-
Smith v. Somers,
456
19, Whether an action will lie against a judicial officer for
an act done in his official character, does not depend upon the
quo animo with which the act was done; but upon the right and
authority of the officer to do it. Taylor v. Doremus,
20, Where the act is judicial, done pendente lite, no action lies,
however wrong and injurious to the party; whether the act was
done malafides, or with the most honest intentions, provided the
justice had jurisdiction of the parties, and of the subject matter of
the suit. But if he had not, and could not have, jurisdiction of
the cause, that is of the subject matter; or where he has such ju-
risdiction, but proceeds without having obtained jurisdiction over
the party, by having him in court, by process or otherwise, ac-
tually or constructively, his acts though strictly of a judicial
character, are coram non judice and void, and he and all per-
sons concerned in executing his judgment or award, would be
trespassers.
21. So too, where a Ministerial duty or authority is annexed
to a judicial office, if the officer execute that ministerial duty
wrongfully, whether by mistake or fraud, he is answerable to the
injured party in a suit at law.
22, Where the justice has full jurisdiction, whether the act
complained of was the result of ignorance, or honest mistake, or
of partiality and corruption, the only remedy of the injured par-
ty, is by writ of error or certiorari.
23, For fraud or corruption the justice can only be questioned
by impeachment.
24, The judicial errors of a Justice, must be corrected by an
appeal or writ of certiorari; but his judicial corruption, by the
court of impeachment.
25, A justice of the peace ought not to impose a fine on a non-at-
tending juror, without first giving him, personally, or in writing
a reasonable notice to appear and shew cause if any he have,
why he should not be fined. The State v. Hollinshead,
26, An execution for collecting such fine, should not author-
ize the taking the body for the want of goods.
27, A joint conviction of two or more defaulting Jurors, is il-
legal, and should not be made part of the record in the civil suit
in which they were summoned.
LEASE.
See RENT, 2.
LEGACY.
1, In an action for a legacy, the costs and expenses of auditing
and stating the executor's accounts, upon a plea of want of as-
sets, as well as the costs of suit generally, will be awarded
against the defendant de bonis propriis if he has been faulty in
not paying the legacy, or any part of it. Meeker v. Arrow-
smith,
2, The act of 1797, to prevent suits under a certain sum, be-
ing brought in the Supreme court, does not repeal or modify the
act of 1774, for the more speedy recovery of legacies, on the
subject of costs. Ib.
3, The case of Woodruff v. Woodruff, Penn. R. 552, as to the
jurisdiction of Justices, for legacies to the amount of one hun-
dred dollars, questioned.
4, Interest upon a specific legacy of money, is to be computed
after and from one year after the testator's death, unless other-
wise directed by the Will, although the fund liable therefor, may
not have come to the executors' hands within the first year after
testator's deceasc. Hoagland v. Exrs. of Schenck.
LEVY.
1, A sheriff cannot levy on any property, by virtue of an exe-
cution after it is returned. Cook v. Wood,
2, Nor can he by virtue of an execution sell property which
was not levied upon, under it.
LIBERUM TENEMENTUM.
In trespass quare clausum fregit, the plea of liberum tenemen-
tum admits plaintiff's possession of the locus in quo. Appleby
v. Obert,
1, An indefinite stay of an execution, by plaintiff's orders, al-
though there be a levy under it; if the property levied on, re-
main with plaintiff's consent, in defendant's possession and under
his control, is such a suspension of the plaintiff's lien, that a
|