
    DESPREAUX against D. & J. HENDRICKSON. [280]
    OÍT CERTIORARI.
    The state of demand in this case, charges Despreaux, the defendant below, that on the 10th of Sept., 1806, he being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $28, in consideration thereof, undertook, and faithfully promised the plaintiff' to pay him the same sum of money when requested. The justice, after hearing evidence, gave judgment against the defendant for the $28. On the trial, a receipt from the defendant to one Murry, a constable, was offered in evidence by the plaintiff. The defendant objected to this receipt, but the justice admitted it. The plaintiff below, also offered in evidence, as the justice states it, “ a transcript of reversal of judgment, Daniel and John Hendrickson, survivors of Charles Dubois v. Jesse Potter, from the Supreme Court.” This was also objected to by the defendant; but admitted by the justice. It was now objected — first, that the state of demand was deficient in not stating the nature of the debt ; and second, that unlawful testimony was admitted by the justice.
    
      Rhea, att'y for plaintiff.
   By the Court.

— We think that the nature of the debt ought to have been set out in the state of demand — whether for money lent, goods sold and delivered, [*] work and labor, or whatever was the foundation of the debt. The circumstances that took place at the trial, show the propriety of it; we cannot judge of the legality of the testimony admitted by the justice, unless we can perceive on the record, the issue between the parties. That a man should go into a court, and say that the defendant is indebted to him $28, and then produce a receipt from the defendant to another person for that sum, and also prove that a judgment between the plaintiff and a stranger, had been reversed in a superior court, appears too loose a proceeding; we cannot collect from, this record, the right of the plaintiff below, to recover.

Judgment reversed.  