
    COLMAN versus WATERS.
    QUESTION IN THIS CASE.
    
      Relative to the answer of a garnishee in attachment.
    
    J. Proceedings against a garnishee, in attachment, before justices of ihe peace, when removed to the Cirrcuit Court, are triable de novo; and the garnishee has' a right to answer over.
    This was a proceeding in garnishment, before a justice of the peace, of Butler county, against the plaintiff in error, at the instance of Waters. The justice, on the answer of Colman, gave judgment, against him, which he removed, by'appeal, to the Circuit Court of that county ; where the judgment was again rendered against him on his answer.
    The error assigned, was the refusal of the Circuit Court, to permit the plaintiff in error, to answerover.
    
      Ellis and Peck for the plaintiff in error — Mr. Dar-gan for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

This cause must be reversed and remanded, on the authority of the case of Gayle vs. Turner.

In cases from magistrates, the proceedings are de novo, and the garnishee should have been permitted to answer anew. 
      
       1 al Rep. 206.
     