
    Horatio G. Jones vs. Henry W. Walker.
    An officer’s return upon a writ, showing an attachment of property, and the service ot a summons on the defendant by leaving it “ at his last and usual place of abode known to me as such in said Boston,” is sufficient to support a judgment.
    Writ of error to reverse a judgment by default of the justices’ court of the county of Suffolk in favor of the defendant in error in an action brought by him against the plaintiff in error, for the want of legal service of the writ upon which the judgment was rendered." The officer’s return upon that writ was thus: “ By virtue hereof I have attached one piano-forte as the property of the within named H. G. Jones, and summoned him to appear and answer at court by leaving the summons of this writ at his last and usual place of abode known to me as such in said Boston.” Plea, in nullo est erratum.
    
    
      J. P. Healy, for the plaintiff in error.
    The officer’s return is equivocal. The defendant’s last and usual nlace of abode known to the officer may not have been the defendant’s last and usual place ol abode.
    
      B. E. Perry, for the defendant in error.
   By the Court.

According to a just and reasonable construction of the officer’s return, it is a return that he left the summons at the defendant’s last and usual place of abode, with an averment that it is known to him as such; and such return supports the judgment. Judgment affirmed.  