
    Love against Barton.
    In Error.
    
      Wednesday, June 3.
    WRIT of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Co- . 7 ■ lumbia county.
    The 22d section of the act of 20th March, 1810, t the judgment of Common g„ai on'aííbe proceedings Certiorari J í™? be{br® justices of the peace, and certioraHsk- and does nof’ extend to a casewhi“h"ias removed prior to the act.
    Before the act of 20th March, 1810, it was not necessary, that the cause of action should be entered in the docket of a justice of the peace. If it appeared, that the case was within his jurisdiction, it was enough.
    This suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace of Northumberland county. From the entries in his docket it appeared, that on the 9th February, 1801, a summons issued against the defendant, the plaintiff in error, f°r a debt under five pounds, and that on the return of the process the parties appeared, when the justice gave judgment for the plaintiff for 1/. 4s. 4>d.. On the 9th March, 1801, the . , . . .• suit was removed by certiorari to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county, of which Columbia county then formed a part. The proceedings of the magistrate confirmed in the Court below, and the record brought to this Court by writ of error.
    
      Marr and Fricke, for the defendant in error, ' 1
    
    now moved to quash the writ, because the decision of the justice had been removed to the Common Pleas by certiorari, in which case a writ of error is forbidden to be sued out by the 22d section of the act of the 20th March, 1810.
    
    Bellas, contra,
    answered, that as this cause had been removed before the passage of the act, it was not within its provisions.
    By The Court. The act of assembly is confined to certioraris issued under- it, and therefore does not embrace this case.
    Motion to quash the writ dismissed.
    Bellas,
    then contended, that there was error in the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, because there was nothing on the record to shew, for what cause the action was brought, but
    
      
      
         5 Sm. L. 171.
    
   By The Court.

This was a proceeding before the act of 20th March, 1810, which requires the cause of action, (whe*ther bond, account, &c.) to be entered on the justice’s docket, and therefore not subject to the provisions of that act. Enough appears on this record to shew, that it was within the justice’s jurisdiction, viz. a debt under Jive pounds. This we think is sufficient, and therefore the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  