
    Thomas O. Dwyer v. Henry G. Cutler.
    From Hertford.
    A single Magistrate has no jurisdiction of actions, founded upon a covenant of guaranty.
    This action was originally commenced by a warrant, and was founded upon the following instrument:
    
      “ I llave 111 i.r; day transferred to Thomas 0. Dwyer, a note of Arthur Lawrence for ninety-five dollars, dated the 30th day of August last, and payable the 5tti of September, 1826, which note I guarantee unto the said Thomas O. Dwyer, or his assigns, for value received. Wit» ness my hand and seal, October 12,1826.
    
      “ HENRY 6. CUTLER.”
    On the trial, it was objected on the part of the Defendant, that a Justice of the Peace had no jurisdiction of the subject. The objection was overruled by his honor Judge Martin, and a verdict being returned for the Plaintiff, and judgment entered accordingly, the Defen-dent apdealed.
    The case was submitted without argument by Gaston, for the Plaintiff. No Counsel appeared for the Defendant
   Tati,or, Chief-Justice,

The act of 1820, extending the jurisdiction of Justices to one hundred dollars, does not embrace this case. The words are, “ bonds, notes and liquidated accounts.” There is a guaranty under seal, on which the sole, remedy is by an action of cove* want, in which damages would be recovered for the nonperformance of the guaranty.

It was certainly not the design of the act, that Magistrates should have jurisdiction of a case, in which questions are likely to arise, which it would be difficul» for them to settle. The construction of a guaranty, the extent of the obligation imposed by it, and the degree of diligence which, under the circumstances of the case, the Plaintiff' is bound to use, require the consideration of a Jury, aided by a Court qualified to instruct them.

There ought to be a new trial.

Per Curiam.* — -Judgment reversed.  