
    Pierce against Sheldon.
    whether it ¡s a valid objection t0 a justice o£ the peace trying acauseahatone bis son-in-iaw?
    An action against aaCc™sta“g’?/rn°turahlg “j“uCeb!“ m S*’ “the ac-ii°nanyb™ther form, the judgmentwill tie reversed.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court.
    . - . , 1 his was an action of trespass on the case, brought by Shel- . \ • ? * don, the plaintiff below, against Pierce, a constable, for the amount of an execution delivered to him to be served, and which he had neglected to serve, or return, within the time limited. The defendant below insisted that the proper form of action was debt, and that the justice had no right to try the cause, because he was the father-in-law of the plaintiff. Both these objections were overruled, and judgment was given for the plain- .. rn i i ’ titt bClOW*
   Per Curiam.

Whether the justice was legally disqualified, on the ground that the plaintiff below was his son-in-law, is, perhaps, questionable ; but the gross indecency of an exercise of his judicial power, in such a case, should induce this court to scrutinize his proceedings with a jealous eye.

This suit was brought under the 13th section of the 25 dollar act, (1 R.L. 395.,) which provides a remedy, expressly, (i by action of debt” The objection to the form of action was, therefore, well taken, and the judgment ought to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  