
    *Searing against Lum.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    Alteration °^transcriPt-
    
    Action for Scienter, 
      
    
    IT was alleged, that the plaintiff in certiorari had received, from the justice, a transcript upon which the certiorari was brought, but that the transcript, now sent to the court, differed materially from it: whereupon a rule was granted upon the justice; and in return to that rule he certified, that the transcript first given was a true copy of the proceedings in said action, at the time when delivered to the plaintiff in certiorari. By the last mentioned transcript, and the other papers, it appeared that the action was brought for a deceit in the sale of a horse; or rather in the exchange of a yoke of oxen and 30 dollars, for a horse; and that the oxen and 30 dollars, were a sound price for a sound horse; and that the defendant alleged the horse to be sound and kind, whereas he was unkind, in harness. In the progress of the trial, the justice refused a nonsuit, and informed the jury, that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had any knowledge of the unkindness of the horse ; and that if he proved the honesty of his intenit would be considered as some reason for mitigating damages, but as no justification.
    
      W. Halstead, for plaintiff.
    
      
      
        Ridgway vs. Fairholm, Pen. *905. Allen vs. Joice, 3 Hal. 135. Camp vs. Martin, 7 Hal. 181. Backer vs. Van Fleit, 1 Gr. 195.
      
    
    
      
      
         Angus vs. Radin, post 815. Allen vs. Wanamaker, 2 Vr. 370. See Mason vs. Evans, Coxe 182.
      
    
   By the court

The justice has acted very incorrectly in altering his record after it was made up, and a copy given to the party. Such conduct deserves reprehension and punishment. He also erred in his exposition of the law, and his judgment must, therefore, be reversed.  