
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    MAY, 1812.
    Francis Richardson v. James Johnson.
    The District Court ought to refuse to hear an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, unless the facts before the magistrate, and the reasons of his decision, are fully certified.
    Where the defendant was sued before a magistrate on a note of hand, a comparison of handwriting merely, is not sufficient to justify .a decision m favor of the plaintiff.
    Motion to reverse a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of York district.
    The decision was -made by Judge Waties, on an appeal from a justice of peace, who certified the proceedings before him had, as follows : “ Debt on a note of hand, in the following words : * I promise to pay Francis Richardson, fifteen dollars, value received. Witness my hand, 9th March, 1804.’ Defendant denied the note; a receipt was brought forward to prove his handwriting. The person whom he gave the receipt to was present, and never denied it. He then pleaded the limitation act. Plaintiff’s agent pleaded defendant’s being out of the State, shortly after the note was given, until it was out of date, which defendant did not deny. Nothing was proven. I gave judgment for the plaintiff for the face of the note, by comparing the handwritings. Signed, Joseph Moore, J. P.”
    The District Court affirmed the judgment.
    Argued by Hooker, for the appellant, and Gist, for appellee.
    Authorities cited : 1 Esp. Rep. 351. 4 Esp. Rep. 4 T. R. 148, 497. Peake’s N. P. 104. Esp. Dig. 149. 1 Bl. Rep. 1 Wils. 134. Limitation act of 1712. 2 Dali. 217. Construction of the expression, “beyond the seas,” in the limitation act. P. L. 190, 96. Also, 3 Cranch, 174. 3 Johns. 266. Hayw. Esp. Dig. 160, 166. Chitty, 146. 1 Wils. 134, 133.
   Brevard, J.

My opinion is, that the decision of the District Court was wrong. That court ought, in my opinion, to have refused to hear the appeal from the judgment of the justice of peace, until the facts before the justice, and the reasons of his judgment, had been more fully certified. The certificate of the justice, on which the court decided, was vague and imperfect. The facts of the case do not certainly appear.

So far as I can understand them, 1 think the justice of peace decided erroneously ; and the District Court also, of course, by con-®rm*n£ thcit erroneous decision. The note of hand appears to have been proven by a comparison of handwriting merely. To avoid the plea of the limitation act, the plaintiff’s agent alleged, ^at 4*ie defendant, shortly after giving the note was absent from this State, and until it was out of date, which the defendant did not deny. This was taken as an acknowledgment of the defendant. But if it could be taken as a confession, what does it amount to ? What was meant by the note being out of date 1 What was meant by the defendant’s being out of the State shortly after the note was given I How long after 1

The court, unanimously, granted the motion;  