
    State v. Jonathan T. Almy.
    Tlio recognizance given in a Justices’ Court, on appeal, is not an essential portion of the case required to he filed in the appellate Court.
    This was an appeal from a judgment rendered by tbe Court of Justices of Newport upon a complaint and warrant, charging a sale of liquor in violation1 of the statute.
    
      H. Y. Cranston and W, II. Cranston for defendant,
    moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the copy of the recognizance, which constituted a portion of the copy of the case prepared by the Cleric of the Justices’ Court and here filed, was clearly inconsistent with the original record of that Court, now produced and exhibited on the call of the defendant: contending that a copy of a case must embody a copy of the recognizance taken on appeal.
    
      Hart, Attorney General, for the State.
   The Court

held that the recognizance is not an essential portion of a copy of a case, and accordingly overruled the motion.  