
    Bellows and Hopkins against Pearson.
    'That the juslice before whom a suit was brought, was the son-in-law of the plaintiff, and Eear and denotwithstand-6’ aíft objectccTto en Íhe*sground ”hipS tolat‘tbé plaintiff, is, of itself, evidence that the trial was notfair and impartial, and ground1 for re-Judgment the maS thCg,>t ^re excessive.
    HSf ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. Pearson, 7 brought an action before the justice against B. and H. for . Jo breaking his looking-glass. The defendant B. pleaded in , ° , . , ° ° . „ 5 , ,, abatement, that he was an attorney of this Court, and that this Court was sitting, in August term, when the. summons issued against him was returnable. This plea, on demurrer, was overruled by the justice, on the ground, that B., being sued jointly with another, was not entitled to his privdege. Both defendants, when they appeared, objected that the justice was the son-in-law of the plaintiff, but the , J , , , objection was overruled. 1 he plaintiff proved that the de- . . , iendants broke the glass, and that it cost, when new, ten dollars and fifty cents, and was worth, at the time, six or seven dollars. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff, for twenty-five dollars.
   Per Curiam.

We have scrutinized the evidence, and see no ground for exemplary damages. The defendants have reason to complain that the damages are outrageously excessive. That the justice, who admitted that he was the son-in-law of the plaintiff, insisted on retaining jurisdiction, was, of itself, evidence, that the trial was not fair and impartial. The judgment ought, therefore, to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  