Case Name: Field against M'Vickar
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1812-05
Citations: 9 Johns. 130
Docket Number: 
Parties: Field against M'Vickar.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
Field against M'Vickar.
new york,
May, 1812
Where an attachment . against a concealed debtor is issued by a justice of the peace, and proceedings are regular, thejusticeeannot supersede the attachment, but must, on the return thereof, proceed to hear the cause, as on any other process.
If a justice allows fees for subpcsnas on morethanfour witnesses, the judgment will he reversed.
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. M‘Vickar sued out an attachment before the justice, against Field, of Cocksackie, in the county of Greene, as a debtor concealed within the county, with intent to defraud his creditors, and to avoid process, &c. The attachment was regularly issued. On its return, both parties appeared, and Field pleaded in abatement, that before and at the time of issuing the attachment, he resided in Cocksackie, and had not departed, nor was he about to depart, from the county, nor did he conceal himself within the same, with intent to defraud his creditors, See. or to avoid process, &c.
The plaintiff demurred to the plea, which was overruled by the justice, and Field then left the court without making any further defence. The plaintiff having proved his demand, the justice gave judgment for 5 dollars and the costs of suit, in which were included five subp cenas and fees of the constable for serving them.
It was objected, 1. That the pleas in abatement were sufficient; 2. That the costs of five writs of subpmna ought not to have been allowed.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The first objection cannot prevail. If the proceedings on the attachment were regular, which is not questioned in this case, the justice had no power to supersede the attachment, but must, on the return thereof, proceed to hear the cause, as on any other process.
The allowance of fees for serving subpoenas on more than four witnesses, is prohibited by the proviso in the 24th section of the act. We could wish to get over this objection, as the difference is only 12 cents and a half; but it is insurmountable. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.
J udgment reversed,