
    
      Ex parte Dennison.
    to *the cPP6p and verdict antfthe'^ourt may award double costs, within the statute for the pleading in certain suits. . (1 R. L. 155.)
    Dennison sued W. & 0. Babcock in trespass for two cows in a justice’s court in the county of Madison ; and the jnstice gave judgment for the defendants. Dennison appealed to the C. P. of Madison ; and on the trial of the appeal, one of the appellees justified the taking as constable, un¿er an execution. A verdict being found for the defendants, the C. P. by rule, allowed to them double costs,
    
      J. A. Spencer, for Dennison, now' moved for a mandamus, commanding the C. P. to vacate this rule, on the ground that the statute allowing the appeal, (6 Laws N. Y. 296, c. sess. 47. ch. 238, s. 39, 41,) providing for costs in all cases, they must be regulated entirely by that act; and were not within the “ act for the more easy pleading in certain suits.” (1 R. L. 155.) He said costs were a creature of the statute, must be expressly given, and nothing is to be implied. If no costs had been given by the fifty dollar act, clearly none would have been recoverable under the act giving double costs; and single costs being given, they only can be recovered.
    
      W. Crafts, contra.
   Curia.

The statute for the more easy pleading in certain suits, is general in its terms ; and no doubt the defendants would have been entitled to their double costs before the justice. It follows, that in a court of appellate jurisdiction, upon the same matter, the like judgment should be given. The C. P. were right, and the motion must be denied.

Motion denied.  