Case Name: MOORE against WHITAKER
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1808-11
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 460
Docket Number: 
Parties: [348] [*] MOORE against WHITAKER.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 52–53

Head Matter:
[348] [*] MOORE against WHITAKER.
ON OEBTIOBABI.
Demand for burning hay, need not state where it was.
The action before the justice, was an action of trespass, founded on the following state of demand:
“ The plaintiff complains of the defendant for this, on the 4th day of March, 1808, or thereabout, the said defendant with force of arms, entered into the salt meadow, and burnt up one stack of hay belonging to said plaintiff, on Oconoke Peppers creek, to my damage, !j>Í6.”
To which demand the plaintiff put in the following plea: “ The said Dickinson Moore comes forward and pleads, that the action ought to be abated, and no further prosecuted against him, the said Dickinson, and pleads that the said action is not stated in a right manner, because he saith that he hath committed no offense against the said Joseph Whitaker, Jun., in the manner he is prosecuted by the said Joseph Whitaker, Jun.” There was a jury trial, verdict and judgment for Whitaker, the plaintiff below, for $8. It was contended on the part of Moore, the defendant below, the plaintiff in this court, that this being an action for trespass on land, it was local, and in order to give the justice jurisdiction of the cause, it ought to have stated the place where the trespass was committed, with more certainty, for it did not appear that the land lay in the county.

Opinion:
The Court
said that they did not understand the state of demand containing a charge of trespass, for entering on the land of the plaintiff, but for burning- his hay, and that they had not been so strict as to reverse judgments of justice's courts, in personal actions of this nature, for neglecting to state the name of the county or township, or, in other words, laying a venue.
It was then contended, that the justice had committed error in not trying the plea in abatement or passing judgment on it before proceeding to try the cause.
Btjt the Coubt said that the pretended plea in abatement was a nullity; that if any thing could be understood by it, it was an averment [*] or declaration on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff had not started his demand in a right manner, because that he, the defendant, was not guilty, which was perfect nonsense, and the justice was not bound to take notice of it.
Judgment affirmed.
Cited is Gould v. Brown, 4 Halst. 165.