People ex rel. Mapes v. Columbia C. P.

Headnote

In an affidavit to found a certiorari, a statement of the points relied on for error, besides setting forth the testimony and proceedings before the justice, is not necessary when the alleged errors consist in the proceedings set forth.

Motion for mandamus. The common pleas of Columbia quashed a writ of certiorari removing a justice’s judgment into that court, for the cause that the affidavit upon which the certiorari was granted, did not sufficiently set forth the grounds upon which the allegation of error was founded. The affidavit states that the plaintiffs declared on a justice’s judgment rendered in the state of Connecticut; that the relator pleaded nil debet, and gave notice of set-off; that the issue thus joined was brought on to trial, when the plaintiffs produced a copy of what purported to be a record of the judgment rendered in Connecticut, and proved that the copy produced was a transcript of the record remaining with the justice in Connecticut, and thát the justice who rendered such judgment was an acting justice of the peace in the town of Salisbury, in the county of Litchfield, and state of Connecticut, at the time of its rendition. The plaintiffs further produced a printed book purporting to be the statute laws of Connecticut, to shew the jurisdiction of the justice, and proved by a witness that’ such book contained the statutes of Connecticut, as received and used in that state: all which evidence was objected to by the relator, but received by the justice, and the plaintiff rested. The relator moved for a non-suit, which the justice refused to grant. The relator then offered to prove the sale and delivery by him to the plaintiffs of a large quantity of wheat and rye, in the years 1827 and 1828, which evidence was objected to by the plaintiffs, and the justice decided that evidence of matters of set-off, arising previous to 19th June, 1830, the date of the rendition of the judgment in Connecticut, was inadmissible, and rejected the same. Here the parties rested, and the justice, after taking

four days for consideration, gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount of their demand. The relator now moves for a mandamus, to vacate the order quashing the certiorari. It was objected, in opposition to the motion for a mandamus, that the common pleas had decided correctly; that the statute requires that the party applying for a certiorari shall not only set forth the substance of the testimony and proceedings before the justice, but also the grounds upon which his allegation of error is founded; or, in other words, that he shall distinctly state the points upon which he relies for a reversal of the judgment.