
    MAIRES v. SMITH.
    On Certiorari to a Justice of the peace.
    
      Mr. Eakin,
    
    moved for a reversal of the judgment of the justice, 1. Because the summons is defective; that it was altered after it was issued, and the return day is in figures. Ross v. Ward 1 Harr. R. 23.
    2. Because service of it was illegal, the return being by one “ C. D. constable for S. C. constable.” Rev. L. s. 630.
    3; Because of the insufficiency of the state of demand. The kind of labor is not specified as it should- be. Penn. R. 660; 2 Chit. Pl. 25; Penn. R. 102, 713. Nor does it appear for whom the work was done. 7 Halst. R. 68; Penn. R. 66, 78, 35, 416; 3 Green’s R. 29 ; Penn. R. 381, 721, 618; 1 Chit. Pl. 125; Com. Dig. 344.
    
      4. The trial was a surprise upon the defendant below, the plaintiff in this Court. The time and place of trial being misunderstood or forgotten. The defendant below had a meritorious defence; holding a receipt in full from the plaintiff. The defendant in Certiorari admitted there was due to him, only fifty or sixty dollars, and yet he has taken a judgment for ninety dollars. 1 South. 289; 3 Halst. 254; 5 ib. 55; 7 ib. 245; 1 Green, 263; &c. Several of the facts stated, were supported by sundry affidavits.
    
      It. P. Thompson, contra.
    The altering of the summons does not appear to have been done after its delivery to the officer for service. The service was correct. The words “ for S. C.” is mere surplusage. The use of figures instead of words in the return day, is not fatal. As to the' pretence of merits; the true rule is; that where the conduct of the party was entirely fair, and the proceedings regular, this Court will not interfere. 1 Green, 304; Penn. 74.
   Hornblower, C. J.

The objection to the summons is not well founded. The return day being in figures is not cause for reversal. The case of Ross v. Ward, was one in which the summons was unintelligible. The constable’s return, in this case, is good, and complete.

There is no valid objection to the state of demand. The services appear to have been for the defendant below..

The party’s forgetting the time and place of trial, is not a matter of surprise in legal contemplation. This Court cannot interfere merely because the judgment is for too much; this is not a Court of equity; it can only reverse for error. The judgment must be affirmed.

Ford, J. Concurs.

Ryersost, J.

I concur in affirming the judgment. It appears that the defendant below, rejected a fair offer to submit the ease to arbitrators; he is therefore the less entitled to sympathy here.

Judgment affirmed.  