
    Gideon Walker, Plaintiff in Error, versus Samuel Melcher.
    If referees, under the statute of 1786, c. 21, agree upon their report during a session of the Court of Common Pleas, such report is regularly to be returned at tile next succeeding term of the court.
    Error upon a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for this county, rendered June term, 1814, upon the report of referees appointed pursuant to the statute of 1786, c. 21, commonly called The Referee Act, and which was accepted at that term.
    From the record it appeared that the rule of reference was en tered into on the 15th of November, 1813. The report commenced thus : “ Cumberland, ss. Brunswick, November 30, 1813. Pursuant to the within rule, we, the undersigned referees therein named, having met, and fully heard the parties, &c., and now, on this 7th day of March, 1814, report,” &c. It was subscribed by two only of three referees, to whom the submission was made; but the third certified at the foot of the report, under date of November 30, 1813, that he was present at the hearing, but gave no opinion as to the damages, &c.
    
    The errors assigned were—1. That the report, having been made upon the 30th of November, 1813, should have been returned to the then next Court of Common Pleas, which was holden on the first Tuesday of March, 1814. 2. That the assessment of the damages was made on the 7th of March, 1814, and it did not appear that the referee, who did not subscribe the report, had any notice or knowledge of the meeting *of the referees on said day, or of their assessment of damages. 3. That it did not appear that the plaintiff in error had any notice of the said last-mentioned meeting, &c.
    
      [Note. — It appeared that the Common Pleas for this county was sitting on the 7th of March, 1814; and it seemed to be understood that the report had been originally presented at that term, and recommitted to amend some informality; but this did not appear from the record.]
    
      Orr, for the plaintiff in error,
    cited the cases of Mott vs. Anthony, 
      
      Southworth vs. Bradford, 
       and Short vs. Pratt & Al. 
      
    
    
      
      I) 5 Mass. Rep. 489.
    
    
      
      
        Ibid. 524.
    
    
      
       6 Mass. Rep. 496.
    
   By the Court.

The objection, that the report was not made to the next court after it was agreed upon, is not supported in point of fact. The court being in session upon the 7th of March, the next term holden in June was the proper time for the return and acceptance of the report. »

The referee, who did not join in the report, appears to have been present at the hearing, but did not agree with his brethren as to the amount of the damages. The report by the others is sufficient within the statute and the agreement of the parties.

The certificate of the referees, that they had fully heard the parties, is a sufficient answer to the third objection.

Alden for the defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.  