
    Alderman against Tirrell.
    In a "uit before a justice, an injrnit must appear by guarIn an action of £ng>aiieifer,the fevímtf and'by whose order the trespass was committed, was competent witféndaut.tlie
    IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
    
      Tirrell sued Alderman, by warrant, for a. trespass, in taking a heifer. The defendant pleaded that he was an ° infant, and lived with his father; which was not denied. • The trespass was proved, and the defendant offered his father, as a witness, but the justice rejected him, as interested, on the ground that he was present and directed■. the defendant to take the heifer. The justice also refused to allow the father of the defendant to plead, the cause for him, at the trial, which was on the 13th April, 1810, and a judgment was given for the plaintiff.
   Per Curiam.

There were several errors in this case. 1. The defendant ought to have appeared by guardian. (3 Johns. Rep. 129.)

2. His father ought to have been permitted to plead for him, as the law, forbidding that privilege, had been repealed, on the 5th of the sam.e month.

3. The father was a competent witness ; for the s'on had no suit over against him, as a co-trespasser ; nor for obeying his illegal order. The objection only went to Mis credit.,

Judgment reversed.  