#### Brown vs. Kellogg.

unless the *hour*of the day, and also the *place,*to which a cause is adjourned by a justice of the peace, be entered upon his docket at the time of the adjournment, he loses jurisdiction of the cause; and a subsequent entry will not supply the defect, or restore jurisdiction.

CERTIORARI to a Justice of tbe Peace.

Tbe case is stated by tbe court.

*John T. Glark,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. 0. Remington,*for defendant in error:

1. Tbe office of a common law *certiorari*is to confine inferior tribunals witbin tbeir jurisdiction, to prevent tbeir exercising powers not delegated to them, and not to correct any error they may commit in exercising tbe powers that are delegated. *Tall-madge v. Potter,*12 Wis., 817. 2. Sec. 11, chap. 120, R. S., in regard to the entries to be made by a justice of tbe peace in bis docket, is directory. At least, a failure to comply with all of its requirements would not be sufficient ground for reversing a judgment. It is claimed that tbe suit was adjourned without mentioning tbe place. It was adjourned to tbe same place at which it was pending when adjourned, whether that was tbe office of tbe justice or some other place. If this is not so, then the adjournment of a cause properly pending in a justice’s court, at the request of one of tbe parties, for sufficient cause, both parties being in court, for one hour, or other proper definite time, would discontinue tbe suit, if tbe justice failed to orally announce in so many words, *11 The adjournment is to this same*room,” or tbe like. Tbe case of *Roberts vs. Warren,*3 Wis., 786, does not touch tbe question as presented here. It is unnecessary to consider tbe question whether tbe justice, in tbe entry be made of tbe adjournment in bis docket, complied with tbe requirements of tbe statute or not, since there is no error assigned on such omission. Tbe complaint is, that tbe *adjournment*was irregular.

*476
      *By the*Court,

Dixow, C. J.

Common law *certiorari*to a justice of tbe peace for Sauk county. *Kellogg*sued Brown, and on. tbe return day of tbe summons, wbicb was tbe 26tb of November, 1862; the parties appeared-, and; after issue joined, *Brown*applied for an adjournment for three months, to procure tbe testimony of a material witness. Tbe justice granted tbe application, and adjourned tbe cause to tbe 19th day of February, 1863, without entering *in Ms doclcet the hour or place of adjournment.*Tbe entry, was in these words: “ Cause adjourned to tbe 19th day of February, 1863.” It appears from tbe return that tbe *hour*of one o’clock, P. M., was fixed at tbe time of adjournment, and on tbe adjourned day tbe words “ at 1 o’clock, P. M.,” were inserted. It does not appear that the *place*of adjournment was ever fixed or entered. On tbe adjourned day, *Kellogg*appeared and took judgment for $10.88, damages, and costs of suit. *Brown*did not appear. It is obvious from this recital of facts, that tbe case of *Roberts v. Warren,*3 Wis., 736, is decisive of the action. Tbe statute is tbe same now as when that case arose. R. S., ch. 120, sec. 11. Tbe time,, wbicb includes tbe hour of tbe day, and tbe place to wbicb tbe bearing is postponed, must be entered in tbe docket whenever there is an adjournment. It is such entry, as well as tbe public announcement, wbicb constitutes tbe adjournment, and, unless it be made, the justice loses jurisdiction. Tbe docket is a public record to wbicb tbe parties and others interested may resort to obtain accurate information and to avoid mistakes. A subsequent entry will not, therefore, supply tbe defect, or restore jurisdiction.

Judgment reversed.