Gaul against Groat

Gaul against Groat. Certiorari from a Justice's Court» A parol authority, to appear in a justice’s court, is sufficient; but should, in general, be clearly proved. Tho’ where a father offerg himsell, to appear for hig son, the defendant, slight proof is sufficient. The attorney may, himself, be a witness to prove such a power;. AsSumpsit, by Groat against Gaul, upon a promissory note. The defendant appeared, in person, and pleaded that he was an infant, at the time of giving the note, and the cause was adjourned. At the adjourned day, the defendant’s father offered to appear for . him. His authority being demanded, he admitted that he had no written authority, but said that his son had requested him to attend for him. Jacob H. another of his sons, was offered, as a witness, to prove the request. There was some embarrassment and contradiction in his testimony, but it amounted to this : That, the night before the trial, he had heard the defendant say to his father, he must be there, when speaking of this suit; but that nothing was said about the defendant’s being absent, or about his father’s acting for him. The Justice refused to permit him to appear, and judgment was given for the plaintiff. J. Vanderpoel, for the plaintiff in error. E. Williams, for the defendant. [MAJORITY — Curia.] Curia. The defendant has a right-to appear by attorney, and can constitute such attorney by parol; but such an authority ought, in general, to be clearly proved. In this case the proof was very loose. The father was a competent witness to prove his authority, if, in truth, he had any. The fact, of not offering himself for that purpose, affords some ground for presuming against his authority. But, considering the relation subsisting between him and the ' defendant, we think the evidence sufficient. Judgment reversed. Murray v. House, 11 John. Rep. 464. Caniff v. Myers, 15 John. Rep. 246.