Dunn and Pool against French

Dunn and Pool against French. Philadelphia, Tuesday, December 26. ^JERTIORARI The proceeding before the magistrate, was by summons to answer a plea of debt or demand not exceeding one hundred dollars; and the judgment was for twenty-nine dollars seventy-six cents, which by the eviden'ce sent up with the record, was rendered for the wrongful taking of the plaintiff’s goods for a militia fine. Justices have no jurisdiction in the damage ¿oiUrs^and^^ though’the sumoTdemaml yeiT iftlie evidence sent up shews it was ill trespass, judgment for a b^revlrsed1 Phillips for the plaintiffs. [MAJORITY — Tilgkman C. J.] Tilgkman C. J. This cause is brought before us by cer~ tiorari. The judgment was given by alderman Wharton, in an action of trespass brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant for taking their goods in execution for a militia fine. The error assigned is, that the judgment is for twenty-nine dollars and seventy-six cents damages, whereas the jurisdiction of justices and aldermen, at the time this judgment was given, 1st August 1806, was limited in actions of trespass to cases where the damages did not exceed twenty dollars. Upon examining the act of 1st March 1799, under which the alderman derived his jurisdiction, it appears that the objection is fatal. The judgment must therefore be reversed. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.