
    SOUTH v. HALL.
    Where the sum in dispute does not exceed ¿612, the justice has jurisdiction, whatever may be the amount of the accounts produced.
    This was a certiorari to Justice Wilson. On the return of the justice it appeared South had brought an action by summons against Hall. The plaintiff at the trial exhibited a demand, to what amount did not appear, against which the defendant produced his aceount, amounting to £40 10s., which was admitted by the plaintiff to be correct, with the exception [30] of a single item of £6. No witnesses were examined, and a verdict passed for the defendant, Hall, for £8 8s. 11d.
    On behalf of South it was contended, that upon the face of the record the justice had no jurisdiction of the case, under the act of June 5fch, 1782, 
       Hall’s aceount of £40 10s. not being disputed, except the £6, which is marked by the justice not allowed; and it does not appear by the record that South produced any account which could have reduced this sum to that found by the jury.
    For Hall it was contended that the. nominal amount charged in the books or accounts on either side was immaterial, provided the sum demanded be within the cognizance of the justice. Two cases of Wood v. Lloyd, decided in this court in September Term, 1785, were cited upon this point.
    The court affirmed the judgment.
    
      
      
         The act In question was repealed and thse jurisdiction of justices increased by the act of March 15th, 1798, and by subsequent laws. See Griffith’s Treatise, 2d edition, and Ewing's Justice.
      
    
   Kinsey, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. He said the case of Pitts v. Carpenter, 1 Wils. 19; 2 Sir. 1191, did not apply in New Jersey, because offsets were optional in England, but compulsory here. The same remark is applicable to the case of Gross v. Fisher, 3 Wils. 48.

The question depends altogether on the amount demanded by the parties; that alone is the sum in dispute, and it is immaterial whether it constitutes the whole account or whether it is a balance; provided it be under £12, the justice has jurisdiction. These distinctions arc to be observed :

1st. If the demands of the plaintiff and defendant on each other do not exceed £12, the justice may adjudicate, let the sum of their respective accounts be what it may.

2d. If, on a summons for £12, or under, the plaintiff exhibits an account of £50, and gives credit for £40, and there is no demand beyond £12, set off by defendant, the justice may render judgment.

[31] 3d. If the items disputed by defendant exceed £12, the justice cannot proceed, though'the plaintiff claims less than that sum.

4th. Where defendant claims above £12, and exhibits an account, and no circumstances justify the belief that it is done fraudulently, the justice ought not to proceed, but stay proceedings on the terms of defendant’s suing in a higher court within a reasonable time.

In short, wherever the real subject in dispute exceeds £12, the justice has no jurisdiction ; where it does not, he has, and the amounts of the respective accounts are immaterial.

In this case it does not appear the justice took cognizance of a demand on either side for a greater sum than came legally within his jurisdiction. It does not follow because £34 10s. was admitted to be a just account against the plaintiff, that the whole of this was therefore demanded by defendant; the verdict itself explicitly negatives such a presumption.

Judgment affirmed.  