Case Name: Jonathan Chew vs. Joseph B. Thompson
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1827-09
Citations: 9 N.J.L. 250
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jonathan Chew vs. Joseph B. Thompson.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 312–314

Head Matter:
Jonathan Chew vs. Joseph B. Thompson.
In an action to recover a penalty incurred under the statute for the preservation of game, the state of demand must shew that the person seek ing to maintain ihe ^action is clearly within the provisions of the ['"‘250 statute, set out clearly the offence and the nature of it. If it do not the judgment will ho reversed.
This was a certiorari brought to reverse the judgment of a j ustice, rendered against the plaintiff in certiorari, for a penalty alleged to have accrued against him, under the statute for the preservation of deer and other game. Rev. Laws 26, sea. 1, 2.
Armstrong, for the plaintiff in certiorari,
among other reasons for the reversal of the judgment, relied upon the following, which is all that it is necessary to notice:
Because tho state of demand sets forth and alleges that the acts of the defendant below, the plaintiff in certiorari, are contrary to the first and second sections of the act of the legislature, on which the suit is brought; whereas the first and second .sections of the said act relate to different matters and describe and define different offences, and affix a separate penalty to each offence ; and, therefore, the said state of demand is uncertain, and no legal judgment can be rendered thereon.
The state of demand was as follows : “ The plaintiff demands of the defendant five dollars and thirty-three cents, for a penalty under the act of the legislature of the state of New Jersey, entitled, “ an act for the preservation of deer and other game,” passed the 21st day of December, 1771, for that the said Stille Chew, on the thirtieth day of December, 1825, on a certain tract or piece of land, situate in the township of Deptford, in the county of Gloucester, boundpd by lands of George Ward, Isaac Hinchman and others, owned by Samuel Webb, and in the possession of the said Joseph B. Thompson, with a gun and dog, did enter and travel over, for the purpose of hunting game on said premises, to which land the said Stille Chew had not any right or title, nor had he obtained, leave of the owner of the same, or of the said Joseph B. Thompson, who then was and now is in possession of the said land, to enter on the same as the said Stille Chew then and there did, with a dog, and carrying a gun as aforesaid, on the said land, contrary to the form of the first and second sections of the above mentioned act of the legislature of the state of Hew Jersey in such case made and provided, by reason whereof the said Stille Chew hath forfeited forty shillings, whereby an action hath *251] accrued *to the said Joseph B. Thompson, to demand and have of the said Stille Chew forty shillings, whereby the said Joseph B. Thompson saith that he is injured, and hath damages five dollars and thirty-three cents, for which he prays judgment.

Opinion:
Ewing, C. J.
The state of demand is uncertain and defective; therefore take a reversal.