
    Benjamin Cohen vs. Richard Saddler.
    Oamages arising ex contractu, as for a breach of warranty, may be recovered before a magistrate, if the amount be withm his jurisdiction. Jf a defendant before a magistrate will not offer to deny the debt on oath, the oath of the plaintiff is sufficient to prove the demand.
    TRIED before Mr. Justice Johnson, Fall Term, 1822.
    
      Richard Saddler had summoned Benjamin Cohen to appear before a magistrate to answer for a bleach of contract. lie charged that Cohen had warranted his watch to run for one year, after his doing some repairs to her. — - That the watch, before the expiration of a year stopt: that he called on Cohen to repair, who refused to do so : that he employed another watch-maker, who repaired the watch, and charged him five dollars, to recover which, the above summons issued. The above facts the magistrate allowed Saddler to swear to, who was the only witness, and he gave judgment for Saddler to the amount of five dollars.
    The defendant moved before Mr. Justice Johnson for a prohibition, which was refused. He now moved to reverse that decision, and that a prohibition might issue on the following grounds :
    1st. Because the magistrate had no jurisdiction.
    
      2d. Because the court refused the motion, when thé gum for which the judgment was given was under Six dollars, and which sounding in damages, was proved before the magistrate on the oath of the party.
    3d. Because the court refused the motion, although the magistrate gave judgment without legal proof.
    
      Williams, for the motion.
    
      Mills, contra.
   Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the court:

The first question is, was this a Case of contract, so as to be embraced within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, or was it one as is expressed in the act of 1791, — • (2 Faust, 53,) “ sounding in damages?” It is plain that the claim arose from the breach of an express warranty, — that the watch would run for one year. It 'was then in the nature of a debt, because it arose ex contractu, and was therefore plainly within the jurisdiction of a magistrate. (1 Faust, 53. J

The second question is, was the case legally submitted ? The objection is, that the Justice suffered the plaintiff to prove his own claim.

But the act of 1747, (R. L. 214, 1 Brevard, 466, j expressly authorizes the Justice to swear the parties litigant, and if the defendant will not offer to deny the debt on oath, the oath of the plaintiff shall be sufficient to prove it. The testimony of the plaintiff then was legal, as well as the case within the jurisdiction of the Justice. To prohibit his proceeding, would be to oust the Justice in a case which is plainly within his cognizance. (See McDonald & Bomer vs. Elfe, 1 Nott & McCord, 501, and State vs. Wakely, 2 Nott & McCord, 410. )

The motion is therefore dismissed.

Justices Huger, Nott, 'Colcock, Gantt and Johnson$ concurred.  