
    Kittle against Baker and Brown.
    NEW YORK,
    Oct. 1812.
    Where aeon-sewed a sum-e!i°nSforSWthe exhibited ‘hh demand to the objection" was defendant,thit was held, that alleged for error.
    The justice may, on the return ""o/1'" the're" ue of the plaintiff, cause"for ‘six requirieran oath of the absence of material witnesses.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Kittle sued Baker and Brown before the justice. On the return of the summons, the parties being called, the constable who served the summons answered for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeared by their attorney. The constable then exhibited to the justice the plaintiff’s demand, to which the defendants pleaded non assumpsit. On motion in behalf of the plaintiff, the cause was adjourned, for want of his witnesses, from the 15th to the 21st Fe~ bruary. The adjournment was objected to by the defendants, but was granted, without requiring any oath of the absence, or materiality of the witnesses. No objection was made to the constable’s appearing for the plaintiff.
    At the adjourned day, the defendants did not appear, and the plaintiff’s demand being proved, the justice gave judgment for the phúntiffj for 3 dollars and 12 cents,
   Per Curiam.

The appearance of the constable who served the summons, being confined to the exhibition of the plaintiff’s demand, was not objectionable. The justice was authorized to adjourn the hearing of the cause, from the day of the return of the summons, to a reasonable time, “ not exceeding six days thereafter;” and as he did not exceed that time, his proceeding was not erroneous, nor does it appear to have been unreasonable.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       See Phinney v. Earle, ante, 352,
     