
    Bowen against Ferne.
    On a certioti< e\ Court* win not?™ reonlhe’grouS ‘ess wasluone form of action, and the plaintiff declared in another, altho’ the objection was taken in time, in the Court below, and overruled.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court.
    The defendant in error brought an action in the Court below, against the plaintiff in error. The summons was issued in trespass; but the plaintiff below, the defendant in error, declared for a bridle, which had been taken out of his possession, and was found in the possession of the defendant below, and which had been demanded by the plaintiff, but the defendant refused to deliver the same to the plaintiff, and converted it to his own use. The defendant objected to the proceedings, on the ground that the summons was in trespass, and the declaration in trespass on the case, and, therefore, there was a variance; but the Justice overruled the objection. The defendant then pleaded the general issue, and after an adjournment, the cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict found for the plaintiff below.
   Per Curiam.

The verdict and judgment on the merits are altogether with the plaintiff below. Strict justice has been done; and the only question is, whether the judgment must be reversed for the variance between the summons and the declaration. By the 17th section of the act for the recovery of debts to the value of twenty five dollars, it is provided, that on a certiorari, this Court shall proceed, and give judgment, as the very right ol" the case may appear, without regarding any imperfection, omission, or defect in the proceedings, before the Court below, in mere matters of form. The variance between the process and declaration was a mere matter of form ^ the very right of the cause is clearly with the defendant in error, and the judgment must, therefore, be affirmed. (10 Johns. Rep. 240.)

Judgment affirmed.  