From Robeson. By the act of 1777, c. 1A, commonly called “the Court law” at section 63, it is provided that either parly dissatisfied with the judgment of a Justice of the Peace, may appeal to the next County Court, Jirst giving security for prosecuting- his appeal with effect; and by an act passed in 1794, (Rev. c. 414,) the same provision is re enacted.
Decided 1827-07-05
Haul, Judge.
¶1
It was not the fault of the Plaintiff that the appeal was not returned to the Court to which it was returnable. At that Court, the Justice whose duty it was to return it, attended as a Juror, he lived 28 miles from Court, and that was probably the reason why he could not then return it, having forgot to carry it with him when he first went to Court. The Defendant was notified of the motion that would be made to enter the appeal on the trial docket, and is now party to the proceedings, there is no hardship on the Defendant in granting a new trial, but in refusing it, an injury may be done the Plaintiff. I therefore think the ends of justice will be better answered, by setting aside the dismission of the appeal and granting a new trial, and that the rule granted for that purpose, should be made absolute.
¶2
Per curiam. — Judgment reversed and nrie absolute for placing the cause on the trial docket.
