Case Name: John H. Pitkin and Walter J. Pitkin, Appellants, v. Matthew Clifford, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03-13
Citations: 118 A.D. 509
Docket Number: 
Parties: John H. Pitkin and Walter J. Pitkin, Appellants, v. Matthew Clifford, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 509–511

Head Matter:
John H. Pitkin and Walter J. Pitkin, Appellants, v. Matthew Clifford, Respondent.
Third Department,
March 13, 1907.
Justice’s Court—when return of justice of peace maybe amended.
When on a motion to amend the return of a justice of the peace it appears by the affidavit of the justice that a judgment rendered on the defendant’s default was made on the oral evidence of the plaintiff reduced to writing instead of upon a verified complaint as erroneously stated in the return, the return should he amended to show the true facts.
(Per Cochrane, J.): Although there are authorities to the effect that the return of a justice of the peace may not he contradicted by an amended return, they do not apply to a case where the justice admits a mistake and seeks to correct it. On the same principle a mistake admitted by the justice may be corrected on motion of a party.
Appeal "by the plaintiffs, John H. Pitkin and another, from an order of the County Court of Saratoga county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 26th day of December, 1906, denying the plaintiffs’ motion to require the justice before whom this cause was originally tried to make a further and amended return.
Hiram G. Todd [ James A. Leary of counsel], for the appellants.
Willard J. Miner, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Kellogg, J.:
The return of the justice shows the appearance of the plaintiffs and that the defendant did not appear; that the plaintiffs complained by verified complaint and that, after waiting an hour, the defendant not appearing, lie rendered judgment upon the verified complaint. The alleged complaint purports to be sworn to by one of the plaintiffs before the justice on the day judgment was rendered. The moving papers tend to show, by the affidavit of one of the plaintiffs, the justice and the attorney who appeared for the plaintiffs, that the complaint was oral, that the plaintiff was sworn and orally gave evidence which was reduced to writing and which constitutes the alleged verified complaint. By the amended return the plaintiffs seek to have returned a statement of what actually took place before the justice. The important circumstance sought to be returned is that what is called tlie verified complaint by the justice was in fact an abstract of the oral testimony. If the plaintiffs produced evidence before the justice and the justice in his return has called that evidence a verified complaint, it would be a miscarriage of justice that plaintiffs should now be defeated on account of such an error by the magistrate. If plaintiffs' oral evidence was taken in court it is not, perhaps, very material what the justice called it. The court wants the facts, and the mistake of the justice in calling the plaintiffs' testimony a verified complaint cannot • vitiate the proceedings. -
The order of the County Court should be reversed, with costs, and the motion for an amended return granted, without costs.
All concurred.