
    BURT against HICKS.
    OS OEBTIOItAEI TO COMMOH PLEAS OP CUMBEBLASD.
    Informal state of demand, sustained.
    The cause had been tried before a justice, and judgment for plaintiff below, for $50; the defendant appealed to the common pleas, who tried the cause anew, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff below, for $50, the same as the justice; the whole proceeding being brought up to this court by certiorari. The plaintiff in this court, who had been defendant both before the justice [*] and the common pleas, contended that the state of demand was uncertain, and insufficient to maintain an action. The state of demand was as follows:
    The plaintiff comes into court and complains, that whereas he had bought a horse of Cromwell Brandriff, and had had said horse in his quiet possession and use for nearly two months,'the said Brandriff meantime being in the neighborhood, and afterwards the said Brandriff absconded from the neighborhood as it is believed, and whereas a Mr. Moses Burt, calling himself a constable of the said county, on or about the 7th day of this instant, June, at or upon the premises of one Abijah Gould, in said county, did from this complainant, then and there being in peace and quiet, confiding in the laws and usages of the State, wrongfully, and with force of arms, and under the pretence of his said office, as constable, take from the said complainant a certain horse, and from him did unjustly detain and keep, to his injury, the sum of one hundred dollars; and this your complainant is ready to prove, and therefore prays judgment for the same, and files this his statement before the said justice, this 23d day of June, 1806.
   By the Court.

This state of demand contains unnecessary and superfluous matter, wholly immaterial, and therefore it maybe rejected as surplusage; nor is it skillfully drawn, according to formal rules; but it contains a substantial cause of action; it charges the defendant wrongfully, and with force of arms, taking from the plaintiff a horse, and that he unjustly detained and kept him to his injury. The state of demand is not skillfully drawn, but we have over and over again decided, that technical formality is not required in the proceedings in justices’ courts.

Judgment must therefore be affirmed.  