
    David L. Hough, Pltff in Error, v. Harvey Leonard, Deft in Error.
    ERROR TO LA SALLE.
    It is error íóra Circuit Court to dismiss a suit Commenced before a justice of the peace, because the papers do-not on their face show his right to jurisdiction.
    It is- the duty of the Circuit Court to near the evidence, and if from that, it appears that the justice had jurisdiction of the matter in controversy, then the case should" be disposed of on its merits.
    Leonard brought an action against Hough, before a justice of the peace. The summons was in the usual form,, on which was indorsed, “demand fifty dollars, justice's fee 75, constable’s fee, 30." A judgment was rendered against Hough, after a trial, for fifty dollars and costs. Hough appealed to the Circuit Court. At April term, 1850, of the La Salle Circuit Court, T. L. Dickey, Judge, presiding, Hough entered a motion- to dismiss the suit, for want of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace, which was overruled. It appeared at the trial on the Circuit, that the bill of particulars, comprising several items, filed by Leonard before the justice, amounted to $109 80. It appeared also, that after Leonard had proved his bill of" particulars before the justice, he rested Ms case for the time being", not having" allowed any crecfits. Hough then moved for a nonsuit for want of jurisdiction in the magistrate. Leonard then offered to allow credits sufficient to reduce his demand to one hundred dollars, which the magistrate permitted. Leonard also asked leave of the Circuit Court to amend his bill of particulars, by striking out, or indorsing specific credits, to reduce his demand to fifty dollars, which was granted. The cause was then submitted to a jury for trial, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of Leonard for $48 55, and costs. A motion was made by Hough for a new-trial, which wras denied. Whereupon Hough brought the cause to this Court.
    M. E. Hollister, for Pltff in Error.
    J. 0. G-lover and Wi. Chumasero, for Deft in Error.
   Caton, J.

The question presented by this record we do hot consider an open one in this Court. At the last term in this Division, it was decided that the Revised Statutes must receive the same construction as the act of 1839, respecting the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, and that it was error for the Circuit Court to dismiss a suit commenced, for want of jurisdiction appearing on the face of the papers, but that it is the duty of the Court, upon appeal, to hear the evidence, and if from that it appears, that the subject matter of the controversy is within a justice’s jurisdiction, then it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the cause upon its merits. Ballard v. McCarty, 11 Ills., 503. The result of the testimony in this case, showed that a justice had jurisdiction of the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff, which, as the verdict shows, was less than fifty dollars, the amount indorsed on the back of the summons as the extent of the plaintiff’s claim.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  