
    Butler against M‘Intyre.
    EMOTT moved for a rule requiring the justice tp amend; his return to the certiorari in this cause. He read affidavits stating a number of facts to which the plaintiffs in error wished the justice to answer, but which were no.t stated in the affidavit on which the certiorari was allowed.
    
      Where a justice has returned precisely and specifically as to alt the facts stated in the affidavit on which a writ of certiorari is allowed, the court will not direct him to amend, his return on supplementary affidavits.
    
      Kirkland, contra.
   Per Curiam.

If the justice returns precisely and specifically as to all the facts stated in the affidavit on which the certiorari was allowed, it is enough. The law has, in this respect, given a sufficient remedy to the party aggrieved. It would be inconvenient to require the ju s tice to answer to supplementary affidavits.

Motion denied.  