Case ID: njl_6/html/0257-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Kirkpatrick, 0. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Hunt against Joseph Boylan.
    OH CERTIORARI.
    A transcript of the justice’s docket not evidence to prove the delivery of execution to constable.
    This was an action commenced by Joseph Boylan against Joseph Hunt, a constable, for not returning an execution within thirty days, as is required by the 29th section of the “act for the trial of small causes,” Pdt. N. J. Laws 313. Upon the trial below, in order to prove the fact of the delivery of the execution to constable, the transcript of the docket of the justice, before whom the judgment had been obtained on which the said execution issued, was read in evidence. The transcript was dated on the 7th of August, 1820, and stated, “ that on the 3d of May, 1820, execution had been granted and delivered to Joseph Hunt, constable.” There was no mention made of the execution ever being returned.
    Upon this evidence, judgment was rendered against the constable, Hunt, for the amount of the debt, interest, and costs due upon the former judgment upon which the execution had thus issued.
    
      Wall now moved to reverse this judgment upon two grounds.
    1. That the judgment was rendered against the constable, not only for the debt and costs of the original judgment, but also for the interest on it. The language of the statute was, “ that the constable should be liable to pay to the person in whose favor the said execution is issued, the debt or damages and costs.” ' Interest is not mentioned, and, therefore, ought not to have been included in the judgment. 2. That the transcript of the justice’s docket was not sufficient evidence to prove the delivery of the execution to the constable.
   Per Curiam.

The transcript was not evidence to prove the delivery of the execution to the constable, because the justice is not required or authorized to enter upon his docket the delivery of the execution to the constable. Therefore, you may take' a reversal upon this point.

Kirkpatrick, 0. J.

As to the first, I should be very much inclined to think that the debt included the interest.