Case Name: PITKIN et al. v. CLIFFORD
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03-13
Citations: 103 N.Y.S. 511
Docket Number: 
Parties: PITKIN et al. v. CLIFFORD.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 103
Pages: 511–513

Head Matter:
(118 App. Div. 509)
PITKIN et al. v. CLIFFORD.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
March 13, 1907.)
Justices of the Peace—Appeal—Return—Amendment.
Where, on appeal from a justice of the peace, the return showed that judgment was rendered on a verified complaint, but, on motion by plaintiffs for an amended return, supported by the affidavit of the justice, it appeared that judgment was in fact rendered on oral testimony, the motion should have been granted.
Appeal from Saratoga County Court.
Action by John H. Pitkin and another against Matthew Clifford. Appeal by plaintiffs from an order denying a motion for an amended return, on an appeal by defendant from a justice of the peace. Reversed, and motion granted.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and CHESTER, KELLOGG, COCHRANE, SEWELL, JJ.
Harry C. Todd (James A. Leary, of counsel), for appellant.
Willard J. Miner, for respondent.

Opinion:
JOHN M. 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, he 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 judg ment 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 plaintiffs were 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 the "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 concur.