
    HILL against HERBERT.
    OH CERTIORARI.
    The first ground taken for the reversal of the judgment in this case, was, that the justice had rendered [*] judgment for more costs than the law allowed. As to this, it was said on the part of the defendant, that the fact was so; but the court could not reverse the judgment for that cause, but only correct the error, a late act of Assembly having pointed out that mode. In the course of the argument of this cause, Mr. Hunter said that he drew the act alluded to, and with a view to this particular cause, and that after the certiorari was brought.
    
      Ewing and Wall
    
    then moved for the reversal of the judgment, on the ground that the action below was to recover penalties under the tavern act, for selling [674] liquor by small measure, and that only nine penalties were charged in the state of demand, yet that the jury had found, and the court had rendered judgment for ten penalties.
    
      Hunter, contra.
    Said that there was a general allegation in the state of demand, charging ten penalties; and although but nine only were enumerated in the specific charges, yet that the specific charges might be rejected as surplusage, and then the general allegation in the state of demand, would support the verdict and judgment.
   By the Court. — It

is necessary to set out each separate distinct offence. In penal actions, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to charge the defendant in general terms, with the commission of ten or any other number of oifences, but he must set them out with certainty.

Judgment reversed.

Cited in Kerr v. Karker, 2 Halst. 349. Distinguished in Johnson v. Barclay, 1 Harr. 1 and 5. 
      
       S. P. ante, 411, 516.
      
     