Case Name: Thomas L. Stanton versus John Hatch, appellant
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1863
Citations: 52 Me. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas L. Stanton versus John Hatch, appellant.
Judges: Davis, Walton, Dickerson and Danforth, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 244–251

Head Matter:
Thomas L. Stanton versus John Hatch, appellant.
A writ, made returnable before a trial justice, “ at Ms dwellinghouse,” to wit, “ at Ms office,” in R., &e., must be entered before Mm at such dwettingliouse.
If entered at a “place separate, and at a short distance from said dwelling-house,” in said R., “ wliich place said justice uses as Ms office for the trial of actions brought before Mm,” the justice has no jurisdiction; and, upon being appealed to this Court, the action will be dismissed on motion, if the record shows the facts.
On Exceptions to the rulings, pro forma, of Rice, J., at Nisi Prius.
The defendant appeared at E. O. Bean’s office, on the return day, and filed a written protest against the justice taking jurisdiction of the action. The justice overruled the objection, and required the defendant to proceed to trial at said Bean’s office. After trial, the justice gave judgment against the defendant who thereupon appealed.'
At the term to which the action was appealed, the defendant seasonably filed a written motion to dismiss the action for the want of jurisdiction on the part of the justice. The presiding Justice overruled the motion, pro forma, and the defendant excepted.
The following is an extract from the justice’s certified copy of the record : —
"Kennebec, ss. — At a court held before me, Moses Whittier, Esquire, one of the trial justices of the peace within and for said county of Kennebec, at my office in Readfield, in said county, being at the office of Emery O. Bean, a place separate and at a short distance from my dwelling-house, in said Readfield, and a place which I use as my office for the trial of actions brought before me,” &c.
The remaining facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
John W. May, for the defendant.
B. O. Bean, for the plaintiff.
1. The writ is in the form sanctioned by long and established practice, and the case finds that the magistrate was present at the time and place named in the precept, and that the parties appeared before him and were heard. So the objection is purely technical.
2. The words "to wit,” may be intended to make definite, but it does not follow, by any necessary construction, that they refer and are to be limited to a particular place within the one named. That is, that the magistrate’s office is necessarily within his dwellinghouse.
In all pleading, the very office of a videlicet is to mark, that the party is not required to make his proof precisely like his allegation. 2 Bouvier’s Law Die., 628 ; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 60; Chitty on Pleading, 318.
3. But if the doctrine contended for by the defendant were correct it cannot prevail in this case. Defendant, in his motion, avers that the Court was not holden at the place named in the writ. This is an allegation of fact not apparent from the record, and can only be shown under plea in abatement.. Gould’s Pleadings, §§ 134-135-; Up ham, v. Bradley, 17 Maine, 423; Chamberlin v. Lake, 36 Maine, 388 : Nye v. Liscomb, 21 Pick., 263 ; Amidown v. Peck, 11 Met., 467.
4. The writ is the only and conclusive evidence of the time and place appointed for trial, and the record copy-of the writ is the only evidence before the Court.
The statements of the magistrate, outside the papers, is not evidence, nor is any recital he may be induced to incorporate into his copy record evidence.

Opinion:
The opinion of a majority of the Court was drawn by
Appleton, C. J.
By R. S. of 1860, c. 164, § 8, "No judgment of any trial justice shall be considered regular unless he shall be present with the plaintiff's writ at the place appointed for trial, within one hour after the. time set in such writ, or unless the case be continued by some justice pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Statutes."
The writ in this case was returnable before Moses Whittier, Esq., a trial justice of Kennebec county, "at his dwellinghouse, to wit, at his office in Readfield, in said county." Prom the record of the magistrate, it appears that the action was entered before him at his office, being the office of Emery O. Bean, in Readfield, "a place separate and at a short distance from my (his) dwellinghouse in said Readfield."
The record shows that the action was not entered at the place appointed for trial, if that place was the dwelling of the magistrate, nor was said justice there, nor was the action continued by any other justice, nor was there an adjournment from the place designated to that where the trial was had.
The office of a videlicet, among other things, is, "to particularize that which was before general, and to explain that which is indifferent." 1 Chitty's PL, 350, note. But the place of trial is not a matter indifferent or which can be so regarded.
The place of trial was at the dwellinghouse of the magistrate before whom the trial was to be. The writ not having ever been entered there, the cause, according to the provision of the statute, as well as to the whole course of authorities on the subject, was discontinued. Martin v. Fales, 18 Maine, 23; Spenser v. Perry, 17 Maine, 413.
Judgment for the defendant.
Davis, Walton, Dickerson and Danforth, JJ., concurred.