Case ID: njl_7/html/0149-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John I. Jones against Jonathan Oliver.
    ON CERTIORARI
    IVlisre the sum demanded in ilie plaintiff’s state of demand is less than sixteen dollars, and the defendant files an offset, claiming more than sixteen dollars, the cause may be tried by a jury of twelve men.
    This was an action of debt, brought by Oliver against Jones. The summons issued against the defendant was for ■$40. Upon the return day thereof, the plaintiff filed his state of demand for S6, and defendant filed his plea, setting •out a note of hand against the defendant for S33. The'trial was adjourned, at the request of the defendant, and the ^plaintiff demanded a jury. The justice issued a venire for' twelve men, who tried the cause, and found a verdict for the plaintiff for $6,- for which sum the justice rendered judgment.
    
      Halsey now moved to reverse this judgment; because the trial was had before a jury of twelve men, instead of six, and *cited the nineteenth section of the small cause .act, (Lev. Laws 634,) and the supplement thereto, (see. 4, p. 772,) which enact, “ that in every action which shall be brought before any justice of the peace by virtue of this act, it shall and may be lawful for either of the parties, after the defendant has appeared, or put in his plea to such action, and before the said justice has proceeded to inquire into the merits of the cause, to demand a trial by jury, which the said justice is required, to grant; and thereupon a venire shall be issued to summon a jury of six men, and no more, if the debt or demand do not exceed the sum of sixteen dollars, or a jury of twelve men and not less, if the debt or demand exceed the sum or value of sixteen dollars.’'
    
      Vroom, contra, said
    that both the parties in the court for the trial of small causes were, in some respects, to be considered as actors. The words “ debt or demand,” made use of in the act, were not confined merely to the debt or demand of the plaintiff, but meant the mutual demands of the parties. This idea was strengthened by the provision of the act, which required the defendant to appear or put in his plea before a jury could be demanded, by which the justice could always know what the mutual demands of the parties were, and could 'issue his venire for six, or twelve-men, according to the amount in dispute.
   The Court, after taking time to consider on the case, affirmed the judgment.

Judgment affirmed..