
    MATLACK and PAUL against LAYMAN.
    OH CERTIORARI.
    The proceeding below was by summons. There was no appearance of either of the defendants, and in [*] the return of the constable, he did not set out the time of the service of the summons.
    
      M’llvaine, for plaintiff.
   By the Court.

It ought to appear by the return, that the defendants had been summoned, the time the law requires, before the return of the summons. This return is also defective in another respect. The return says, that the summons was served on one of the defendants, not naming him. This is too uncertain.

Judgment reversed.  