Case Name: SMITH against VOORHEESE and NEVINS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1807-09
Citations: 2 N.J.L. 272
Docket Number: 
Parties: [*] SMITH against VOORHEESE and NEVINS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
[*] SMITH against VOORHEESE and NEVINS.
ON CERTIORARI.
On suit by overseers of the poor, the addition overseers, &c., may be rejected as surplusage. But the proof being for them as overseers, illegally admitted.
The plaintiff in this court, was the defendant below, Voorheese and Nevins brought the action against him, styling themselves overseers of the poor of the town of Franklin, and delivered the justice the following state of demand:—
“ The plaintiffs demand of the defendant the sum of one hundred dollars, for so much by them laid out, expended and paid to the use of the defendant.”
On this a trial, verdict and judgment for $32.58 was had against the defendant below; on whose behalf it was,
1st. Moved to reverse the judgment of the justice, on the ground that overseers of the poor, not being a corporation, could not sue or maintain an action as overseers of the poor; but the court inclined to think, that the addition of the overseers of the poor might be rejected as surplusage, when the action would be in the private and joint right of plaintiffs below; on which it was, on that view of the subject.
2d. Objected that the justice had admitted illegal evidence respecting the payment of money for the support of a certain pauper, and a book to prove that one John Bla\v was a pauper, which would not be legal or relevant unless the action was to be supported on the ground of the plaintiffs below being overseers of the poor, and suing as such.
The court was of opinion that, considering the action was one brought by the plaintiffs below in their own private right, and not in their public capacity, [198] improper evidence had been given to the jury; and thereupon reversed the judgment.

Opinion:
[*] Pennington J.
— Said he was no way satisfied with the general manner of stating demands before the justices. For money laid out, paid and expended, or had and received to the use of the plaintiff, or of goods, wares and merchandises sold and delivered, he said that there ought to be a more particular specification of the nature of the demand, resembling a bill of particulars. The purposes in the present case, for which the money had been laid out, extended and paid, ought to have been set out with certainty; if this method is not pursued, illegality and injustice would be endless.