
    Roberts & Roberts against Failis.
    the furyj 'in "á ¡"properly0"ssignabie as an upon certim-a11‘it ¡s ¡rre lar for a jury down a sum which they find add tthePsums together, divide by the number of jurors, and adopt the quotient as their verdict. The irregu7ii\* /»rtnr1ii<'f nf
    Certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The, suit below was between Failis, plaintiff, and Roberts, defendant. The jury,*n ma^ng UP their verdict, each put down a sum for which they would find for the plaintiff, added thésé together, divided the aggregate by six, the number of jurors, and rendered the' quotient as their verdict, on which judgment was given, The plaintiffs here assigned this matter as error in fact ; and the defendant answered in nutto est erratums
    
    
      Puinam, for the plaintiff in error.
    G. W, Lay, contra.
   Curia

Harvey v. Rickett, (15 John. 87-8,) decides, thct suc}1 conduct in a jury is improper. And we are of opinion that a certiorari, and assignment of the error, as here, is the proper mode of redress.

judgment reversed»  