Case ID: njl_4/html/0328-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amos Tilton against Joseph Brand.
    ON CELTIOLALI.
    Demand for cash paid, 
    
    Jury called, after cause in part heard by justice. 
    
    WALL for plaintiff.
    Two reasons were assigned for the reversal of this judgment.
    1. The insufficiency of the state of demand ; “ it being for the sum of 20 dollars, for this; to wit, to cash paid December 1817.”
    2. That the justice granted a venire for a jury after he had himself in part tried the cause. On the first day appointed for the trial, several witnesses were sworn, on both sides, after which the parties agreed to adjourn the cause “for better proof.” After this adjournment the plaintiff demanded a jury—it was granted, a venire issued, and the cause tried by the jury.
    
      
      
         Sykes vs. Stokes, ante 214. Bruen vs. Douglass, Pen. *464. Vanderveer vs. McMackin, 1 Hal. 213, Denny vs. Quintin, 4 Dutch. 134. Hutchinson vs. Targee, 2 Gr. 386. St. John vs. Adams, Pen. *985. Brannin vs. Voorhees, 2 Gr. 590. Ramsey vs. Emmons, Pen. *640.
      
    
    
      
      
         Lummis vs. Stratton, Pen. *246.
      
    
   By the Court.

Both the reasons assigned are supported by the record and both are sufficient to justify a judgment of reversal. The first is supported by many decisions, and the last, by the express words of the 19th section of the act, constituting courts for the trial of small causes.