Case Name: GULICK against The Executors of VAN ARSDALEN
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1811-02
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 747
Docket Number: 
Parties: GULICK against The Executors of VAN ARSDALEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
GULICK against The Executors of VAN ARSDALEN.
OS CERTIORARI.
The first objection to the action below was that the justice had not entered on his docket the name of the county. The name of the county appeared on the proceedings, particularly on the plea of Grtilick, in whose behalf the objection was taken.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The objection was not taken below; had the justice tried the cause out of his county, the fact could easily have been made to appear. The objection is founded on too much refinement, when applied to justices' courts.
It was then contended that the judgment ought to be reversed on another ground, to wit: that the plaintiffs below did not produce, on the trial, the probate of the will of their testator, although called on for that purpose. This fact appeared on the record; the justice stating that he did not consider it necessary, as [*] the defendant had, in his plea filed with him, acknowledged the plaintiffs as executors; he had treated them as such in his plea.
By the Court.
This point was determined in the case of Brokaw, executor, v. Decker, State Reports, 231
It was then contended that the justice had rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the costs of the defendant; as to which, it appeared that the justice, in stating the sum found by the jury, adds these words : defendants costs is six dollars and nine cents; and then proceeds to render judgment for the debt found by the jury, and six dollars and nine cents costs.
By the Court.
As judgment was rendered [547] but for one bill of costs only, it is fairly to be presumed that the justice meant by defendants costs the costs which the defendant was to pay; the costs that were adjudged against the defendant were not the costs which he himself expended, but the costs of the plaintiff; at least it does not satisfactorily appear to the contrary.
Judgment affirmed.
S. P. 2 Dal. 100; S Day's Bep. SOS,