
    *Thomas Croxall vs. John Hutchings.
    In order to authorize the issuing of an attachment against an absconding debtor, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff in attachment to swear “ that the debtor absconds from bis creditors and is not at this time, within the State of New Jersey, nor within the reach of process from said state;” he must swear that the debtor is not resident in this state at the time of issuing the attachment.
    This was a certiorari to remove into this court the judgment and proceedings in ail attachment which had' been issued by a justice of the peace against Thomas Croxall at the suit of John Hutchings, upon the following affidavit : "John Hutchings being duly sworn, &c., saith, that he verily believes that Thomas Croxall, of, &c., is justly indebted to him in the sum of forty-three dollars ; and this deponent further believes the said Thomas absconds from his creditors, and is not at this time within the State of Hew Jersey, nor within the reach of process from this state.”
    
      J. S. Green, for the plaintiff
    in certiorari, relied upon several reasons for the reversal of the judgment. The only-one necessary to be noticed is, the insufficiency of the affidavit. Rev. Laws, 355, see. 1. And this reason he urged under the general reason filed viz : “ Because judgment was rendered for the plaintiff improperly and illegally.”
    
      
      Ryerson, contra,
    contended that as the insufficiency of the affidavit had not been specifically assigned among the reasons filed for the reversal of the judgment, the plaintiff could not take advantage of it.
   Per Curiam.

The j udgment should be reversed for the insufficiency -of the affidavit. The direction of the attachment act has not been followed. Absence and non-residence are not convertible terms. The latter is required. This objection may be properly urged under the general reason.  