
    Pierce against Hubbard.
    NEWYORK,
    Oct. 1813.
    Though pro» cess issued by a justice may be altered by his direction, yet a general authority by him to a constable, to alter the dates of executions,instead of renewing them, or to up or alter process, is void.
    And the practice of authorizing a constable to alter process in any case is neither prudent nor discieet in a magistrate»
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Pierce brought an action of trespass de bonis asporlatis, $-c. against Hubbard, before the justice. The trespass, in entering the plaintiff’s house and taking the goods as stated in the plaintiff’s declaration, was proved. The defendant justified the taking under two executions against the goods of the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, as a constable, to be executed. The executions were produced, and one of them appeared to have been altered in its date from the 25th of December, 1810, to the 1st of March, 1811; and the other from the 11th of December, 1810, to the 2d of March, 1811. The justice who issued the first execution testified that he might have authorized the constable to do it, as he frequently gave constables permission to alter the dates of executions at the request of the plaintiffs, considering the alterations as tantamount to a renewal. The justice who issued the other execution testified that it was made out in December, 1810, but was not delivered to the constable until March, 1811. The jury found a verdict for the defendant, on which the justice gave judgment.
   Per Curiam.

The only question in this case is, whether the executions under which the defendant justified, were valid. It does not appear that any thing bad been done under the executions, until after the alterations in the date of them. Ançl if the aItera~ tions were made by the direction of the justice, the process would not thereby be invalidated. Any general authority-, however, by justices to constables, to fill up or alter process, would be void and highly improper. It is a practice which in no case would be prudent or discreet on the part of the magistrate. Whether 1 the alterations in the present case, were made by the authority of the justices or not, were questions of fact for the jury to decide; and we do not see sufficient grounds for setting aside their verdict.

Judgment affirmed.  