
    
      S. G. Bishop versus Noah Lyman, and others.
    In trespass, the force atufarías, and the day of the trespass, aro not matters of substance, and the omission to state them in the gammons left with the defendant ⅛ no came for abating the writ.
    This was an action of trespass, in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants, at Columbia, on the 19th January, 1829, with force and arms, made an assault upon Mm and beat him.
    Samuel Thomas, one of the defendants, having prayed oyer of the writ, and the officer’s return upon it, by which it appeared' that his property had been attached, and a summons left for his appearance, prayed that the summons might be enrolled. In the summons the action was stated to be “ trespass for your assaulting, beating and wounding hirn, the said Bishop, at Columbia, on the 19th January, 1827, for which he claims $1000 damage,”
    The said Thomas then prayed judgment of the writ, because the summons did not contain the substance of the declaration.
    To this plea there was a demurrer, and joinder in demurrer.
    
      Bell, for the plaintiff.
    
      Young, for the defendants.
   By the court.

It is said, in this case, that the summons does not contain the substance of the declaration ; that the force and arms, and the time of the assault alleged in the declaration are omitted in the summons. But neither the time of the assault, nor the force and arms, are matters of substance. 1 Cbitty, 375 and 383. This summons contains all which the statute requires.

Plea adjudged insufficient.  