
    Pease against Gleason.
    Where a jush“ a journing a cause, nothing but an abuse of such discretion will be regarded aefro‘“
    IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Gleason sued Pease in an action of trespass. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict for the plaintiff for 11 dolJ J J 7 - 1 _ lars and 8 cents, on which the justice gave judgment, ’
    _ , . On the return to the certiorari, the objection was, that the justice, on affidavit of Gleason, adjourned the cause for two hours, after the jury were ballottcd, to enable t^ie plaintiff to procure witnesses; and he admitted an attorney to act for the plaintiff, on proof of his absence from the county.
   Per Curiam.

The adjournment was no serious inconvenience, and it rested in the discretion of the justice, which was not abused in this case. There is no evidence of it. The proof of the absence of the party satisfied the justice, and that was sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.  