
    [*] HUNT against CLARK and al.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    The action below was brought on the following state of demand:
    
      
    
    There was a jury trial and verdict, and judgment for the plaintiff for $96.53.
    The plaintiff in certiorari objected, first, to the competency of the state of demand; and second, to the refusal of the justice to admit testimony to prove that Matthias Clark, one of the plaintiffs below, was part owner of the sloop Mary Gordon.
   By the Court.

The state of demand, though not very intelligible, yet it is sufficiently so to show that it is a demand made by the plaintiffs against the captain of a sloop, for the amount of the sales of a sloop load of brick, taken by him to New York, and sold as agent to the plaintiffs, evidenced by a bill rendered; and whether one of the plaintiffs were part owner of the sloop or not, was of no importance, and therefore the evidence properly rejected; the action must be considered as between principal and factor.

Judgment affirmed.  