
    [715] CLARK against ZANE.
    OH CERTIORARI.
    The state of demand filed with the justice was for a bill of expense for the lying in (of a woman of the same name with the plaintiff below, but not stated to be his daughter, or in any way connected with him), with a child charged on the defendant below. The defendant did not appear at the trial; no evidence was examined before the justice; but the justice admitted in evidence two examinations of the woman who had borne the child. It was objected that’ the state of demand was insufficient; and also, that the depositions admitted in evidence were not legal testimony — that in fact it was a judgment without evidence.
   By the Court.

The objections are fatal. The state of demand does not set out a legal cause' of action, and the evidence given was illegal; and even if legal, insufficient, —as no evidence was given of the material facts necessary to have been proved.

Judgment reversed.

Cited in Erving v. Ingram, 4 Zab. 520.  