
    DARNEL against SHELDON. [394]
    OH CERTIORARI.
    State of demand being a half cent over $100, does not oust a justice of jurisdiction. Court will not presume plaintiff absent at rendering a verdict, or that constable was not sworn to attend the jury, from those facts being omitted in the record.
    The action below was an action of debt. The first point urged by the counsel for the plaintiff in this court, who was the defendant belowq was that the state of demand, after deducting all costs, exceeded $100; and therefore, that the justice was ousted of his jurisdiction of the cause. It appeared by the state of demand sent up, that the plaintiff below had charged a great many items,
    In all amounting to $341 41J
    And then credited the defendant with sundries, 241 41
    And without carrying down the half-cent, stated
    this balance of $100 00
   [*]

By the Court.- — We do

not think it correct to reverse for this cause. The plaintiff demanded but one hundred dollars, and the variance of a half-cent in the credit is too small to take notice of. It was then contended, that the plaintiff was not present when the verdict was rendered; and also, that the constable was not sworn to attend the jury. The record on these points, show that the justice had not entered these facts on his docket; and therefore, the court was required to presume the want of them; that what did not appeal’ on the record was not.

By the Court.

We think this too strict.

There were several small articles of provisions charged, which were noted to have been lent at the time, in the plain- - tiff’s account; for which cause, the counsel for the plaintiff in error contended, that these goods lent, could not be recovered in this form of action.

But the court said, that this being a common book account, kept in a plain way, by plain people, it was well enough; and

Affirmed the judgment.  