
    
      No. 10.
    BRANDON against PITTSFORD.
    
      Rutland,
    
    1819.
    TSE officer’s return on- the warning musí state tüe particular situation in which the copy was left — after the expiration of the year the officer serving the warning cannot amend his return.
    ORDER for the removal of Joshua Leclave, May 30, 1817.
    On the trial of this cause at September term, 1818, the overseers of the poor of Pittsford offered in evidence a warnifig dated the ejev&nth day of March,'!816, which was served on the 13th day of the same March, and within one year after the said Leciave moved into the said town of Pittsford ; the return stated the service to' be “by leaving á true and attested copy at the last place of abode,” without specifying the particular sitúa-tion in which the copy was left.
    . To the admission of this evidence the overseers of the. poor of the town of Brandon objected, and the evidence was excluded by the Judge.
    Thereupon, the overseers of the poor of the town of Pitts-ford moved, that Jonathan Dike, Jr. the constable who served the said warning, might be permitted to amend his return so made as aforesaid, but the Court over-ruled the said motion and refused to permit the said Dike to amend his return.
    Verdict for the town of Brandon.
    Motion for new trial by the counsel for the town of Pittsford, founded on exceptions to the decisions of the Judge.
    In support of the motion, Newell and Williams contended :
    1. That the omission in the return was not fatal..
    2. That the service having been made in fact conformable to the Statute, the officer ought to have been permitted to amend the return, if it was defective. 11 Mass. 477.
    
      Contra. Langdon L
    
    1. That the defect in the return wás fatal.
    2. That by the Statute the warning and service thereof, must be recorded, which constitutes the evidence of a vested right, and cannot be amended after record thereof. 1 Bac. Áb. 167-8.
   The Court decided, that after the expiration of one year of the pauper’s residence, the officer could not be permitted to amend his return, and confirmed the decision of the Judges-

The motion for new trial was dismissed.  