p. 362treated, as though filed in said County Clerk’s office as the return made in said action by the justice of the peace before whom the original trial was had,” and it was further ordered “ that the proceedings on appeal in the above-entitled action shall proceed in all respects upon such substituted and restored record, as though the original return of the Justice of the Peace had not been lost, but had been filed in the County Clerk’s office of Essex County, by said justice before whom- the original trial was had, and required by law.”
The case being upon the calendar for the term of the County Court commencing June 25, 1906, a motion was made on behalf of the respondent to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that no return had been filed as required .by section 3053 of the Code. The motion was granted and an order was entered dismissing the appeal without notice of settlement. This order did not recite or refer to the order of March seventeen or to the fact that the pleadings had been restored and the record of the- appeal supplied as required by said order. The defendant appealed to this court and thereafter made an application to the County Court to resettle the order appealed from, so as to include or specify the order of the seventeenth of March and the papers used or read on the application for that order.
The application for resettlement was denied, and it is from the order denying such resettlement" that this appeal is taken.'.
C. J. Vert, for the appellant.
Adelbert W. Boynton, for the respondent.
It is undisputed that the order of the seventeenth of March and the papers upon which it was granted, including the exhibits filed as therein directed, were referred to upon the argument and presented to the court by the defendant’s counsel in opposition to the motion, and it appears by the affidavit of the plaintiff’s counsel, used and filed in the motion for resettlement, that upon the argument the county judge suggested to defendant’s counsel that he doubted his power to grant the order of March seventeenth.
This serves to show that the order of the seventeenth of March
p. 363and the exhibits filed, as and for the returns, were before the court and were considered and used on the motion to dismiss the appeal. This being so, the appellant was entitled, under rule 3 of the General Rules of Practice, to have them'recited in that order.
It follows that the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
All concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.