
    [Sunbury,
    June 26, 1829.]
    FRICK against PATTON.
    CERTIORARI.
    A Certiorari does not lie to a justice of the peace, to' remove proceedings had before him, under the act of assembly of the 13th of April, 1807, in relation to stray cattle. '
    
      Robert Patton had instituted proceedings before William Nesbit, Esq., a justice of the peace of Northumberland county, .under the act of assembly of the 13th of dtpril, 1807, to recover damages for an injury asserted to have been done to his premises by stray cattle. The proceedings before the justice were conceived by the defendant, Henry Frick, to be erroneous, and he took out a Certiorari, to remove them to this court.
    
      Marr, on behalf of the defendant below, now moved to quash the writ, on the ground, that this court had no jurisdiction, and referred to the twenty-fourth section of the act of assembly of the 20th of March, 1810. Purd. Dig„ 459..
    
      J. Hepburn, contra,
    
    cited, The Commonwealth v. Fourteen Hogs, 10 Serg. Rawle, 393. M‘Call v. Lenox, 9 Serg. & Rawle, 302.
   Per Curiam.

The prohibitory section of the act of assembly of 3 810, is as general as words can make it. No writ of Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court, to any justice of the peace in any civil suit, or action, shall be available to remove the proceedings had before such justice.” What is the nature of the proceeding in the case of strays? It is a species of attachment to compel the owner to appear and make satisfaction for trespass committed by his cattle; and, after appearance had, if satisfaction be not tendered and accepted, the proceeding assumes the ordinary form of an action inter partes, the justice giving judgment according to the limit of his jurisdiction, and issuing execution for the damages, and the defendant having the benefit of stay of execution and'appeal, as in other cases. The case of the Fourteen Hogs, 10 Serg. & Rawle, 393, which is .cited in support of the writ, passed,’as to the present question, sub silentio; and, M'Call v. Lenox, 9 Serg. & Rawle, 302, was the case of an inquisition before two justices; in which respect, it is essentially different from the case at bar, which falls within both the letter and the spirit of the prohibition.

Certiorari quashed.  