
    Hemstract against Youngs.
    NEW YORK,
    Oct. 1812.
    On the return of a summons before a jusOctober, ^the pal^Jes venire was a-instance of the thejustíeeadjonrned the \st .N'n-oember, the defendant demanded “an adjournment, •which the justice refused, would pay'the costs of the venire ¡ it was held, that the entitiedtothe ancT'“that6the justice had no right to refuse it, on that ground.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Youngs . . „ u 65 sued Hemstract9 before the justice, m trespass, and on the return of the summons, ob the 25th October, 1811, the parties appeared, and joined issue. The plaintiff demanded a jury, and the justice thereupon issued a venire, which was delivered to a constable, and adjourned the cause to the 1st November, on which day the Parties appeared, and the defendant demanded an adjournment, which the justice refused to grant, unless the defendant would pay the constable’s fees on the venire, and the jurors’’ fees, which the defendant refused to do. The cause was then tried, and the jury f°un(^ a verdict for the plaintiff, for one dollar and fifty cents, op which the justice gave judgment.
   Per Curiam,

There is nothing in the return from which we can infer, that the first adjournment was at the defendant’s request; and when the second adjournment was moved for by the defendant, we are to presume, that he offered to comply with the conditions, requisite to entitle him to an adjournment, under the 5th section of the act, as the justice put his refusal to grant the motion . . . . . . . . on a different ground, and one which he was not authorized take. The defendant must have been entitled to the adjournment as of right. There doés not appear to have been any delay, or want of due diligence on his part which could bring his ease within the decision of Powers v. Lockwood; (ante, 133.) and he was clearly entitled to the adjournment.

Judgment reversed.  