Case Name: Nathan Hayward, Petitioner, &c.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1830-10
Citations: 10 Pick. 358
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nathan Hayward, Petitioner, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 364–365

Head Matter:
Nathan Hayward, Petitioner, &c.
When a prisoner appears before two justices of the peace, for the purpose of taking the poor debtor’s oath, the question whether it66 clearly appears upon the evidence produced, that he is entitled to his discharge,” is a matter submitted to the judgment of the justices, and therefore an error in judgment upon that question is not a ground for a writ of certiorari.
Oct. 23 d, 1829.
This was a petition for a writ of certiorari, in order to quash the proceedings of two justices of the peace, who had administered the poor debtor’s oath to one Snell. The St. 1817, c. 186, § 1, enacts, that “if it shall not clearly appear upon the interrogatories and answers, and the other evidence produced by the debtor and creditor, that such debtor is entitled to his discharge, the said justices shall not administer the said oath to him, notwithstanding he may offer to take it.” It was objected, on the part of the petitioner, that the oath ought Ínot to have been administered to Snell, because the evidence before the justices showed clearly, 1st, that the debtor had conveyed property in trust for his own use, in - fraud of his V creditors ; and 2dly, that he was entitled to a pension of $ 8 J a month from the government of the United States, on which the sum of $ 48 was due at the time when he took the oath.
Oct. 30th, 1880*

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It does not appear that there was any error in the forms of proceeding before the magistrates, or that improper evidence was admitted by them ; but the alleged error is, that they permitted the debtor to take the oath, when from the evidence in the case he was not entitled to that privilege. That was a matter submitted by the statute to their judgment, and we cannot revise their decision upon it. Their proceedings can be quashed only for want of jurisdiction, or for manifest error on a point of law.
Petitioner takes nothing.