
    FRITH vs. THE JUSTICES OF THE INFERIOR COURT.
    A judgment ordering a road to be opened, rendered on the report of reviewers who are not sworn, is erroneous.
    
      Certiorari, in Randolph Superior Court. Decided by Judge Perkins, at May Term, 1860.
    In the year 1859, the Justices of the Inferior Court of Randolph county appointed certain commissioners to review and report on the laying out of a certain road to lead out of Cuthbert, Ga., through a ten acre lot adjoining the town of Cuthbert, in the possession of the plaintiff in error. The commissioners reviewed the premises and made a report in favor of opening said road, etc.
    Afterwards, the Inferior Court appointed certain persons to assess the amount of damages accruing to the owner of the land on account of the proposed road, and which appears to have been done without notice to the owner of said lot.
    The assessors reported the damages to be one hundred dollars, to be paid to the owner of said ten acre lot on the termination of a suit between John Roe and Mrs. Frith respecting the titles to said lot.
    It further appeared that the commissioners and assessors acted in the premises without being sworn. The reports above stated were made the judgment of the Court, and an order passed making a highway through said lot.
    Mrs. Frith being dissatisfied with these proceedings, carried the same by certiorari to the Superior Court, asking that the same be set aside on various grounds: Want of notice of the proceedings in their several stages; uncertainty as to the width of the road; the damages to be paid to her upon a condition, and not absolutely; the failure of the reviewers and assesors to be sworn, etc.
    On hearing the certiorari, the Court adjudged that the same be sustained as to the assessment of damages, and that the judgment of the Inferior Court be affirmed as to their right to open the road to the extent of thirty feet.
    Tq which decision the plaintiff in certiorari excepted.
    
      Hood, for plaintiff in error.
    Douglass & Douglass, contra.
    
   By the Court

Stephens, J.,

delivering the opinion.

The statute requires the reviewers to be sworn, and we think that on account of the failure to swear these reviewers, the whole judgment, which was founded on their report, ought to have been set aside.

Judgment reversed.  