
    Corwein against Hames.
    ALBANY,
    Jan. 1814.
    An action qui iam9 &c. was Tbro’t before a justice to recover the penalty for retailing liquors in the town of W without á license, a moiety of the penalty being given to the poor of the town of W. (Sess. 14. c. 364. 1 ,7V. B Z >76.) It •was held that thoughtjiejustice was an inhabitant of the town of W., Jiisinterestwas tooremoteand contingent to afford a valid objection to >iis trying the osrasp.
    IN EPtPtOR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Hames brought an action qui tarn, See. against Cormein, before the justice, for selling spirituous liquors, by retail, in the town of Wall-kill, without a license, &c. as required by the act for regulating inns and taverns, passed the 7th of April, 130L (Sess. 24. c~ 164. 1 N. it. L. 176.) One of the objections made by the defendant in the court below, was, that as a moiety of the penalty, if recovered, would go to the support of the poor of the town of Wallkill, in which the justice then lived, he had an interest in the cause. The objection was overruled, and the plaintiff having demanded a venire, the cause was tried by a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff, on which the justice gave judgment for 25 dollars.
    The cause was submitted to the court without argument.
   Per Curiam.

The interest of the justice was too remote and contingent to be regarded in this case. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       1 Johns. Rep. 486.
     