Potter ads. Halsey.-Jackson ex dem. Smith v. Wilson.-&c.

POTTER ads. HALSEY.

A special demurrer to a declaration, stating a note of hand to be duly made, without saying, and delivered, overruled, Duly made, is well enough.

JACKSON, er dem. SMITH, and others, against WILSON.

A judgment of 12 years standing, must be presumed to be regular, and a party cannot object to its regularity, collaterally, at a trial. The party against whom it was given, ought to move to set it aside, if it was irregular.

WHITNEY against RussEL.

A parol promise, in consideration of the forbearance of a debt, and the forbearance given, is binding, although to pay

the debt of another.

2d. The declaration before a justice being defective in stating the promise, is cured by the evidence returned, being sufficient to support a good declaration.

MALIN against BROWN.

A verdict for defendant in trespass refused to be set aside, on the ground that the plaintiff, if entitled to a verdict, can recover trifling or nominal damages only.

Potter and Bull ads. Dole.-Jackson, ex dem. Swart v. Swart.-&c.

POTTER and BULL ads. DOLE.

MOTION for a new trial on the discovery of new evidence, denied.

1st. Because the affidavit of one of the defendants, which alone is produced, does not state, (and cannot,) that the other defendant did not know of the evidence, and had it not in his power.

2d. Because the affidavit ought to have stated the names of the witnesses.

JACKSON, ex dem. SWART, and others, against SWART.

A deed to S. and wife, and their heirs in the premises, although the word heirs be not contained in the habendum, conveys an estate in fee. A trust declared in the habendum, is consistent with this construction.

DEPEYSTER & CHARLTON ads. MILLER & GRAHAM.

PLAINTIFF took out a commission to the Havanna, within the 4 days after the issue joined. It issued in December, 1801, and the court on motion for a nonsuit, directed it to be entered, unless the plaintiff after so long a delay, would stipulate, which he did.

De Witt ads. People.-Hildreth ads. Executors of Bogert.-&c.

D'WITT ads. PEOPLE.

1. PROCEEDING after a certiorari, delivered in forcible entry and detainer, is a contempt, and the justice is liable to an

attachment.

2. A recognizance is not necessary; it is not a case within. the act; but on the ground of probable mistake in the justice, time was given to purge his contempt, till next term.

HILDRETH, Sheriff, ads. Executors of BOGERT.

AN action for an escape is transitory, but the venue may be changed, on the usual affidavit. The plaintiff being remote in New York, is allowed 20 days to stipulate, to give matarial evidence in the county where laid, and retain the venue there if he please. Vide Bogert ads. Hildreth, post.

CALWELL & PEARSON against GRAHAMS.

A defendant was discharged under the insolvent act in time to plead it; not doing it, and judgment being obtained against hin, he is precluded. His having employed an at

torney, will not help him.

Duffin v. Wynkoop.-Livingston v. Hastie and Patrick.-&c.

DUFFIN against WYNKOOP.

1st. A landlord may sue for double damages, for carrying away a distress before a justice, and costs are recoverable in

such action.

2d. Single damages, not being distinctly assessed, is not material in a justice's court.

3d. A question upon the evidence, determined against the plaintiff, and judgment affirmed.

LIVINGSTON against HASTIE and PATRICK.

1st. An abandonment, made on information which was true, is good, although the subject appear afterwards to have been restored.

2d. A delay of six weeks after its arrival, and after a tender to the underwriters before a sale, is no evidence of a waiver.

RICHMIRE against STUKER.

BOTH parties agreeing to a jury before a justice, waives a defect in the venue.

Ladd v. Fuller.-The People v. Franklin --Jones v. Hart.-&c.

LADD against FULLER.

A justice ordered to amend his return, which was unintelligble in a material point.

THE PEOPLE against FRANKLIN.

In an indictment for forging a bill of exchange, certain letters in the margin of the bill were omitted, but not being essential to the validity or description of the bill, they were not deemed material.

JONES, and others, against HART & Co.

A judgment before a justice, in the name of Thomas Hart & Co., (the plaintiff,) affirmed, it not appearing that there was more than one plaintiff who sued, and it is frequent for merchants, although acting singly, to assume or to continue under an arbitrary firm.

RANEY against CRARY.

THERE being no return certified on the writ of certiorari, the court would not proceed to hear the errors assigned.