
    Daniel Hull vs. Thomas Martin.
    It a plaintiff in certiorari seek? to reverse a judgment of a justice upon the ground that the j ustice adjourned the cause for the purpose of taking time to consider of his judgment without fixing any place, and without notifying the defendant, he must make out satisfactorily these facts. Tlie mere omission of the justice to stale the place to which the cause was adjourned, is not sufficient evidence to siiew that the judgment was rendered at a different place. ■
    
      Hornblower,
    
    moved to reverse a judgment of a justice of the peace rendered in favor of Martin, and relied upon two reasons. 1. Because tlie justice adjourned the cause for the purpose of taking time to consider of his judgment, without fixing on any hour or place to which lie so adjourned, and without duly notifying the defendant. 2. Because the justice adjourned the cause and rendered judgment in the absence of the defendant, without duo notice to the defendant of such adjournment.
    
      *The only evidence in support of these reasons was the transcript of the justice’s docket, which after stating the appearance of the parties, and that they rested their case, proceeded thus : “ After hearing the witnesses and allega-
    tions of the parties, I postponed the giving judgment for one week at the same time of day. Whereupon I gave judgment against the defendant for eighteen dollars, &c.”
   By the Court.

There is no ground for the reversal. The parties attended and went to trial; after which, the justice, in their presence adjourned to a subsequent day, naming the hour. The presumption is that the adjournment was to the same place.

Judgment affirmed.  