Case Name: Thomas Banks and others against Cupid Murray and others
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1820-05
Citations: 5 N.J.L. 849
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Thomas Banks and others against Cupid Murray and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 980–981

Head Matter:
*Thomas Banks and others against Cupid Murray and others.
ON CERTIQRARI.
• f^ibi^e*1 try and deseUrat thuTes tate of com-the^place and ■svhere ses
THIS was an action of forcible entry and detainer, The complaint sets out, that Murray and others, the below, trustees of the people of colour, belonging to the miethodist society at Snowhill, on the 1st June 1818, at the township of Newtown, in the county of Glouwere possessed of a certain meeting-house and lot containing two acres, there situate, and that BaiiJcs and the others, on the said 1st June, at &c., did enter into and upon the said meeting-house and lot of ground, and detain and hold the same with force, &c. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and that they had been in the peaceable possession of the premises, for three years last past.
At the trial it appeared, that the meeting-house was situated in the township of Gloucester. Of this fact there was no contradiction of evidence. The judgment was in favour of the complainants.
Van Auken vs. Decker, Pen. *108. Barnes vs. Nicholson, Pen. *326. Wall vs. Hunt, 4 Hal. 37. Applegate vs. Applegate, 1 Har. 321. Corlies vs. Corlies, 2 Har. 167. See Allen vs. Smith, 7 Hal. 199. Pullen vs. Boney, 1 South. 125. Mairs vs. Sparks, ante 513.

Opinion:
Two reasons were principally relied on, by Armstrong, for plaintiff, for the reversal of the proceedings. 1. That the complaint did not set out the estate of the complainants, in the premises. Pat. 291. Pen. 108. 8 John. 464. 2. That the premises were wrongly described in the complaint, in this, that they were charged to lie in Newtown, whereas they lie in Gloucester; the place being a substantial part of the offence. Str. 595. Woodruff, replied for defendant: that the action was not confined to individuals, but was also open to corporations ; that these plaintiffs, not having an estate in fee, or for a definite number of years, could set out no other estate than they have done; that this action was originally criminal in its nature, and still remained partly so; and, therefore, the place was not material; (2 Uaiv. 337) and that the complaint being made, the justice could not nonsuit for a variance, between it, and the case as proved, but must try the cause, and receive the verdict.
The court adjudged, that both the reasons were well founded, and, therefore, that judgment must be reversed,.