
    [*] LEWIS against ALBERTSON.
    ON CEETIOEABI.
    Affirmance, state of demand sufficient.
    The controversy turned upon the sufficiency of the state of demand, delivered by the plaintiff below, to the justice, which, though not plainly written, was as follows:
    
      
      
    
    
      Pearson, for plaintiff.
   Kirkpatrick, C. J.

— The reason relied upon, for reversal of this judgment at bar, was the imperfection [74] and insufficiency of the account filed. Upon inspection it seems to me, to be perfectly intelligible. Besides, the defendant appeared and went to trial upon it.

I am for an affirmance of the judgment.

Rossell, J. — Concurred.

Pennington, J.

— I concur in affirming this judgment. The state of demand contains a plain charge for wood sold, not very skillfully made out, but that is not required.

Judgment affirmed.  