Case Name: Frank R. Roe, defendant below, plaintiff in error, vs. Hughlett Stevenson, plaintiff below, defendant in error
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1897-11-02
Citations: 1 Penne. 80
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank R. Roe, defendant below, plaintiff in error, vs. Hughlett Stevenson, plaintiff below, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 80–80

Head Matter:
Frank R. Roe, defendant below, plaintiff in error, vs. Hughlett Stevenson, plaintiff below, defendant in error.
Certiorari—Award of Referees.
Judgment reversed on the ground that the referees made no award to the plaintiff below, but merely taxed the costs.
(November 2, 1897.)
Fore, C. J., and G-rubb and Pennewill, J. J., sitting.
Richard R. Kenney and Arley B. Magee for plaintiff in error.
(Defendant in error was unrepresented by counsel.)
Superior Court, Kent County,
October Term, 1897.
Certiorari to John S. Jester, a Justice of the Peace in and for Kent County. The record of the Justice disclosed that the plaintiff below brought an action of debt against the defendant below for illegal distraint; demand $5 00.
Both parties demanding trial by referees, the same were appointed by the Justice. The record then continues : “August 4, 1897, plaintiff and defendant both appear ready for trial, and also the above named referees, who after hearing the allegations of the parties and their proofs made a report signed by all the referees, that they found for the plaintiff for fourteen dollars and fifty-two cents for costs.
“And now to wit: Judgment is hereby given against the said Frank R. Roe, the defendant, in favor of the said Hughlett Stevenson, the plaintiff, for the sum of fourteen dollars and fifty-two cents costs with interest from August 4, 1897.”

Opinion:
Counsel for plaintiff in error filed, among others, the following exception to the record of the Justice, viz :
" For that the referees not finding the defendant below, plaintiff in error, indebted to the said plaintiff below, defendant in error, in any amount, should have reported to the said Justice that they found no cause of action, and should have left the costs to be made up by the said Justice, and which should have been against the plaintiff below, defendant in error."
Judgment reversed.