
    
      James Houghton v. Peter B. Strong.
    ON certiorari from a justice’s court. The declaration, as appeared from the return, stated, that the defendant “ privily, wilfully and maliciously, by cer- “ tain conduct, damaged the plaintiff to the amount “ of twenty-five dollars.” General errors were assigned ; and it was principally relied on, that no cause of action was stated in the court, so as to show the justice had cognizance of the suit.
   Per Curiam.

The declaration is bad. It ought to have stated, not only the injury, but how it arose. If this be necessary in this court, it is more so before inferior tribunals, whose proceedings may be reviewed here. Unless the cause of action be stated with certainty, it is impossible for us to know whether the justice had jurisdiction or not. This very suit may, for aught that appears, have been in slander, or for an assault and battery, or for some other matter not cognizable before a justice. Nor does it appear by any part of the record (none of the testimony being returned) what kind of action was proved by the witnesses. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed with costs.  