
    Dunn versus Hutchinson.
    When a ease has been submitted by agreement to the presiding Justice, to be heard and determined, no exceptions can be taken to his rulings.
    ON EXCEPTIONS from Nisi Prius, TenNEY, J., presiding.
    This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received, and submitted to the Court by agreement.
    The defendant objected to the rulings of the Court.
    The nature of the exceptions is immaterial as the decision was placed on a different ground.
    No arguments were offered on either side.
   The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

CoodeNOW, J.

— This was an action of assumpsit, and submitted to the Court, by agreement, Dec. term, 1854, under the provision of the statute of 1852, c. 246, § 12. The Justice presiding ordered judgment for the plaintiff, for the sum of thirty dollars damages, and interest from the date of the writ.

The defendant claimed the money collected by him in set-off to charges on his books, and offered his books, together with his suppletory oath, showing the charges against R. M. Baker, the assignor of the demand to the plaintiff, to more than the amount of the money collected by him ; being objected to, the Judge excluded said books.

To which rulings, decision and rejection of testimony the defendant excepted, and his exceptions were duly allowed.

Where a case has been submitted, as this was, to the Justice presiding, to be heard and determined by him, we do not understand that exceptions can properly be taken to his decision or proceedings. • Exceptions dismissed.  