LaSalle County IL Archives Court.....Hough, V Leonard 1850
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarch.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarch.org/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 May 25, 2008, 8:02 pm

Source: Records Of Cases Illinois
Written: 1850

David L. Hough, plaintiff in error, v. Harvey Leonard, defendant in error.

Error to La Salle.

It is error for a Circuit Court to dismiss a suit commenced before a justice 
of the peace, because the papers do not on their face show his right to 
jurisdiction.

It is the duty of the Circuit Court to hear the evidence, and if from that, it 
appears that the justice had jurisdiction of the matter in controversy, then 
the case should be disposed of on its merits. (a)

Leonard brought an action against Hough, before a justice of the peace. The 
summons was in the usual form, on which was endorsed, "demand fifty dollars, 
justice's fee, 75, constable's fee, 30." A judgment was rendered against 
Hough, after a trial, for fifty dollars and costs. Hough appealed to the 
Circuit Court. At April term, 1850, of the La Salle Circuit Court, T. L. 
Dickey, Judge, presiding, Hough entered a motion to dismiss the suit, for want 
of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace, which was overruled. It appeared 
at the trial on the circuit, that the bill of particulars, comprising several 
items, filed by Leonard before the justice, amounted to $109.80. It appeared 
also, that after Leonard had proved his bill of particulars before the 
justice, he rested his case for the time being, not having allowed any credits.
 
Hough then moved for a nonsuit for want of jurisdiction in the magistrate. 
Leonard then offered to allow credits sufficient to reduce his demand to one 
hundred dollars, which the magistrate permitted. Leonard also asked leave of 
the Circuit Court to amend his bill of particulars, by striking out, or 
endorsing specific credits, to reduce his demand to fifty dollars, which was 
granted. The cause was then submitted to a jury for trial, which resulted in a 
verdict and judgment in favor of Leonard for forty-eight dollars and fifty-
five cents, and costs. A motion was made by Hough for a new trial, which was 
denied. Whereupon Hough brought the cause to this court.

M. E. Hollister, for plaintiff in error.

J. O. Glover and Wm. Chumasero, for defendant in error.

Caton, J. The question presented by this record we do not consider an open one 
in this court. At the last term in this division, it was decided that the 
Revised Statutes must receive the same construction as the act of 1839, 
respecting the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, and that it was error 
for the Circuit Court to dismiss a suit commenced, for want of jurisdiction 
appearing on the face of the papers, but that it is the duty of the court, 
upon appeal, to hear the evidence, and if from that it appears that the 
subject matter of the controversy is within a justice's jurisdiction, then it 
is the duty of the court to dispose of the cause upon its merits: Ballard v. 
McCarty, 11 Ill., 508. The result of the testimony in this case, showed that a 
justice had jurisdiction of the amount due from the defendant to the 
plaintiff, which, as the verdict shows, was less than fifty dollars, the 
amount endorsed on the back of the summons as the extent of the plaintiff's 
claim.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

--------------------
(a) The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace is to be determined by the 
evidence heard upon the trial of the appeal: Rogers v. Blanchard, 2 Gil., 325; 
Clark v. Whitbeck, 14 Ill., 393; Happel v. Brethauer, 70 Ill. 166; Ballard v. 
McCarty, 11 Ill., 501; Swingley v. Haynes, 22 Ill., 214; Marshall v. Pope, 29 
Ill., 441. 

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois from 
November Term, 1850, to June Term, 1851, both inclusive by E. Peck, Counsellor 
at Law. Volume XII. Reprinted from the Original Edition, with Annotations by 
William Gordon McMillan of the Chicago Bar. Callaghan & Company, Chicago, Ill. 
1881.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/lasalle/court/hough175gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/

File size: 4.4 Kb