
    Baldwin vs. Delevan.
    If the return of a justice to a certiorari from the common pleas expressly imports a statement of all the evidence, and there is nothing in it to support the judgment, that court is bound to reverse.
    On error from the Cortland common pleas. Baldwin sued Delevan before a justice, and declared in casé, for a fraudulent misrepresentation on an exchange of horses. The cause was tried by jury, who found a verdict for Baldwin, upon which the justice rendered judgment. Delevan carried the cause to the common pleas by certiorari. The justice’s return to the certiorari was in the usual form, detailing the testimony at length, and concluding thus :—“ I certify also, that the foregoing is all the testimony given on the said trial,” <fcc. The testimony set forth showed no representation whatever made by Delevan, save what he had said to one Pike, a witness, to whom he offered the horse in question a short time before the exchange with Baldwin. The C. P. reversed the judgment of the justice, and Baldwin sued out a writ of error.
    
      W. H. Shankland, for plaintiff in error.
    
      H. Ballard, for defendant in error.
   By the Court,

Cowen, J.

The only question is, whether a verdict and judgment appearing by the return to be entirely unsupported by evidence, should be reversed. We think it should. (Noyes v. Hewitt, 18 Wend. 141. Vid. Striker v. Bergen, 15 id. 490, and the cases there cited.)

Judgment affirmed.  