
    Joseph H. Halsey against The State.
    IN the sessions of Essex county, an indictment in the following w'ords was found; New-Jersey, Essex county, The jurors of the state of New-Jersey, for the body of the county of Essex, upon their oath present, that Joseph II. Halsey, late of the township of Elizabeth, in the county of Essex, on the nineteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, eight hundred and thirteen, then being one the constables of the county of Essex, in and for the township of Elizabeth, by colour of his said office, unlawfully and unjustly, did demand, extort, receive and take of and from one 'Ezekiel Ross of the county of Essex, •the sum of two dollars and seventy-five cents, for and as his fees, in part on an execution against one Isaac Winans, jun. at the suit of Joseph Nesbit, on which the said Ezekiel Ross had engaged to pay the debt and costs, in contempt of the laws, &c. A demurrer was filed by defendant, and judgment for the state, and writ of error to this court.
    
      indictment extorti°u-
    
      ■ Scudder and Williamson, for plaintiff in error, contended.
    1. That no place was laid where the offence was committed, and therefore the indictment was bad.  3 Jac. Law D. 406. .4 Bur. 2471. 2 Bur. 1127. 3 Bac. 550,562. Ind. let. F. 2. That the indictment did not state that nothing was due to the officer, or what was due, and what he took beyond his lawful fees.  2 Salk. 687. 4 Com. Dig. Extor. C. 154. 3 Bur. 1697. 1 Gaines 131.
    
      Ghetwood answered.
    
      
      
         State vs. Jones, 3 Hal. 307. State vs. Price, 6 Hal. 217.
      
    
    
      
      
        State vs. Maires, 4 Vr. 142. Cutter ads. State, 7 Vr. 125.
      
    
   By the Court.

The exceptions are well taken. The indictment is not sufficient. There must be judgment for the plaintiff in error.  