
    DEMING v. AUSTINS’ ADMINISTRATORS.
    Justice’s transcript — certainty—void judgment — excess of jurisdiction.
    A justice’s transcript which recites that the defendants appeared, and severally acknowledged to owe the plaintiffs two hundred dollars, and bail for stay of execution, shows no judgment and cannot be regarded as such.
    When a justice exercises jurisdiction for a debt above one hundred dollars, he is exercising special jurisdiction, and must show his authority on the face of his proceedings.
    The justice has no jurisdiction beyond one hundred dollars, without the consent of both parties.
    The plaintiffs declared upon a judgment before a justice of the peace for debt, two hundred dollars, and ninety cents costs, and rnade proferí of the transcript. Plea, nul tiel record.
    The only evidence offered was a transcript from the justice as follows: ‘Deming & Co v. C. & S. Austin — June 23, 1818 — personally appeared C. Austin, jr. and S. Austin, and jointly and severally acknowledged themselves indebted to Messrs. T. & C. Deming & Co. in the sum of two hundred dollars on a note of hand of this date.’ 4 Bail for stay of execution.’
    Webb, for the plaintiff,
    cited 3 O. R. 273, 305; 4 O. R. 327; 5 O. R. 24.
    Loomis, contra.
   By the Court.

This Court has always construed the proceedings of justices of the peace liberally, giving them efficacy whenever that can be done with safety; but we do not feel at liberty to disregard all certainty in their favor. The transcript before us shows no judgment. It is ostensibly an acknowledgment of a debt of record, as upon a recognizance — there is nothing from which we can conjecture a judgment, except the entry ‘bail for stay of execution.’ Without the agency of both parties, the amount is beyond the jurisdiction of the justice, and his acts would be void. In acting for such an amount, the justice exercises a special jurisdiction, and is bound to show his authority on the face of his proceedings. This transcript only shows the action of the Austins — it nowhere shows the plaintiff acting in any way — no amicable suit is entered, and there is no appearance of or for the plaintiffs. From the sixteen years delay, it would seem they had just discovered the justice’s entry, and -now would avail themselves of it to avoid the statute of limitation. They cannot now make the judgment valid, if not so when it was entered. At any rate the plaintiffs count upon a judgment, and none is shown. We concur in the authorities cited by the plaintiffi but consider them inapplicable, because there is no judgment.

Whether resort can be had to the note, or the original cause of action, we now give no opinion. We find for the defendant.

The plaintiff asked and obtained leave to amend his declaration, on paying all the costs since filing, &c.  