Case ID: njl_2/html/0324-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. JESSUP, Jr., against A. SHARP, Esq.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    For penalty under the swine act, the demand must state the facts as well as the appraisement. If defendant attend the trial, evidence will be presumed.i 
    
    This was an action brought for damages under the swine act, on the following state of demand:
    Amos Sharp, the plaintiff, comes into court and demands of John Jessop, the defendant, the sum of $2.28, and craves judgment for the same. To $1.28 to the appraisement of John Sleeper and Jacob Hains, for damage of one of his hogs; and to $1.28 agreeable to the act of the Legislature, which makes $2 28.
    
      C. Kinsey, for plaintiff.
    
      
       Vide ante, 250.
      
    
    
      
      
         Acc. post. 852.
      
    
   The parties appeared by consent, and the justice in his record says: After hearing the allegations of the parties, I give judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $2.28 debt, and ten cents costs.

The first exception taken to the proceeding below was, that this must have been a trial without evidence, no witness being examined. But the court said, that [250] in cases where a trial had been had in the absence of the defendant by default, and the nature of the action such as to require the examination of witnesses, they had considered it as a trial without evidence, and reversed the' judgment for that cause; but had never gone so far as to reverse the judgment for this cause, when the defendant was present, as he might admit facts sufficient to maintain the action.

It was then objected that the state of demand was insufficient to maintain the action, as it merely set out [*] the appraisement and not the other requisites of the statute; and for this cause the court reversed the judgment.

Cited in Thorpe v. Rankin, 4 Harr. 36.