
    Thomas Pray versus Phillips Curtis.
    A witness testified that he warned a soldier in the militia to appear at a company muster, by laying down before him, at his dwellinghouse, a printed notification, but which was not signed by any person, making at the same time some remark about training, which the witness did not recollect. Held, that the evidence did not prove either a printed or a verbal notice.
    Petition for a certiorari to a justice of the peace, by whom the petitioner had been fined for neglecting to appear at an inspection of arms, on the first Tuesday of May, 1838, in a company of militia, of which the respondent, was the clerk.
    At the trial before the justice, the complainant (Curtis) produced a company order, directed to one Pope, to warn certain persons enrolled in the company ; and Pope testified that he filled up a blank printed notification, and carried it to the dwellinghouse of Pray, and laid it down upon a bench in his presence, making at the same time some remark about training, which the witness did not recollect. He further testified, that the notification was not signed by himself or any other person
    
      
      Nov. 1st.
    
    
      Nov 2d.
    
    Kingsbury, for the petitioner.
    Leland, for the respondent,
    said that the informal printed notice, taken in connexion with the remark on the subject of training, amounted to a verbal notice. »
   Per Curiam.

By Revised 8tat. c. 12, § 89, it is provided, that no notice shall be legal, except the same be given by the non-commissioned officer or private, ordered to notify, to each man, either verbally or by leaving, at his usual place of abode, a written or printed order, signed by such non-commissioned officer or private, four days at least previously to the time appointed, if for inspection of arms, company training, or inspection and review, &c. Now the notification which was left in this case was not signed, and so not to be considered as a written or printed order ; and the fact that the witness made some remark about training, it not appearing what that remark was, cannot be construed into a verbal notice, within the meaning of the statute.

We all think that a writ of certiorari should be granted.  