by a jury, there can seldom be a necessity for adjourning to another day to give judgment.

In cases where two justices of the peace are authorized to hear and determine, they must be present together to try the cause, and to confer as to the judgment to be given, and to concur and join in it. Ante, 4. 1 Bos. & Pul., 492. 7 Cowen's Rep., 526.

If the decision of the cause should be postponed, the complainant and the defendant should have reasonable notice of the time and place when and where the decision will be made, so that they may be present.

And, in every case where the statute requires the defendant to be brought before the justice, it would be proper and, perhaps, requisite that the final decision should be made as soon as the evidence is closed and the case is submitted. It would seem to be an unwarrantable exercise of power to continue the defendant in custody for an indefinite period of time, for this purpose, to suit the convenience of the justice.

When the defendant has been tried before one or two justices, with or without a jury, and found not to be guilty of the charge set forth in the complaint or information, he is then forever quit and discharged of the accusation. But, if he is found guilty, he is then said to be convicted of the offence whereof he stands charged. 4 Bl. Com., 361. 2 Stark. Ev., 426, and notes.

It is said that conviction is, either when a man appeareth and confesseth, or is found guilty by the inquest. And the law implies a conviction before punishment, though not mentioned in a statute. Judgment amounts to a conviction, though it doth not follow that every one who is convicted is adjudged. Jac. Law Dic., title Convict.

When any corporeal punishment is to be inflicted on the defendant, it is absolutely necessary that he should be personally before the court at the time judgment is pronounced. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 695. 2 Burn's Justice, 592.

In proceedings under the vagrant act, the defendant may release himself by giving to the justices a bond, &c., and, on default, he is to be hired out. In this case, it is essential that the defendant should have an opportunity to comply with one of the alternatives offered to him, by being present and informed of the determination of the justices.

But, where a pecuniary penalty only can be awarded, judgment may be given in the absence of the defendant. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 695, 721. Str., 44.

When proceedings are instituted under the statute against a person for an assault, assault and battery, or affray, it would seem that, if he should absent himself during the trial and neglect to attend before the justice when the proofs are closed and the cause is submitted for his determination, when tried before him

without a jury, or when tried before the justice and a jury, if he neglects to attend upon the bringing in of a verdict, it is apprehended that it would be the duty of the justice to proceed and give judgment; for, in these cases, an execution is to be issued to collect the fine and costs out of the personal property of the defendant, if any can be found, before he can be committed to jail. Gale's Stat., 415.

Where there are several defendants, a joint award of one fine against them all is erroneous; for it ought to be several against each defendant; for otherwise, one who hath paid his proportionable part might be continued in prison till the others have also paid theirs, which would be in effect to punish him for the offence of another. 2 Hawk., 446.

There must be a record of the whole proceedings, wherein the justice must set forth the particular manner and circumstances, so as, if he shall be called to account for the same by a superior court, it may appear that he hath conformed to the law, and not exceeded the bounds prescribed to his jurisdiction. 1 Burn's Justice, 409.

In actions brought against justices of the peace, they are obliged to show the regularity of their convictions. Str., 701. It should appear on the face of the proceedings, not only that the party has been convicted of an offence within the jurisdiction of the justice, but also that the proceedings against him were regular. 12 East., 67-82. 7 Term Rep.; 275. Cowp., 642. 5 Wend. Rep., 281. And it seems that proof of the conviction, where it recites the previous proceedings and shows them to be regular, would be deemed sufficient, at least prima facie evidence of the facts recited. 7 Term Rep., 631. 10 Mod., 345. And that, where no summary form is given by a particular statute, if the conviction did not show that the proceedings were regular, as if it did not show that the defendant was summoned or was present, the defect would be fatal and could not, as it seems, be supplied by extrinsic evidence, 6 Term Rep., 375. 8 Term Rep., 542, though it has been held that in some cases affidavits may be heard. Upon this ground convictions have frequently been quashed. 1 Salk., 181; see also 2 Stark. Ev., 427, and notes. Yet in Brucklesbank v. Smith, 2 Burr, 656, all the proceedings were regularly proved in evidence.

Parol evidence, however, would not be admissible to prove the proceedings to support a conviction, for it is not the highest or best evidence. 7 East, 146. The material parts are reduced to writing and should be produced. It has been ruled by Mr. Justice Caton, in the ninth judicial circuit, that parol proof, even of the justice of the peace before whom the proceedings were had, cannot be received to explain irregularities appearing upon the face of the proceedings.

In the case of Boomer v. Lane, 10 Wend. Rep., 525, it was held that the proceedings in a cause before a justice may be proved by him by the production and verification of his docket, but

he cannot be permitted to give parol evidence of what transpired before him.

The following observations on the form of a record of conviction are principally applicable in those cases in which no directions are given by the statute authorizing this mode of proceeding in the particular instance.

A conviction, in the sense in which the term is here used, is a record of all the proceedings, so that the superior court may judge of their regularity; and when it proceeds on the information of some person and not on the justice's own knowledge, it recites the information and all the subsequent proceedings, usually in the past tense, because, unless by consent, or in some particular cases, it must have been preferred some time before the conviction. 1 Saund., 262. Yet it has been held that the whole record should be in the present tense. 1 Term Rep., 320. Ld. Raym., 1376. It seems, however, that the acts of the party may be in the past tense; but the acts of the court must be in the present tense. 1 Mod., 81. 2 Saund., 493.

It should show that the information was exhibited within the county and jurisdiction of the justice of the peace who issued the process. Ll. Raym., 1220. 13 East, 139.

The time when the offence was committed must be stated, so that it may appear that the prosecution was commenced in due time, especially if required by statute to be brought within a certain time. 7 East, 146. But if the year necessarily appear by reference to some other part of the conviction, it is sufficient. 7 East, 389. It has been seen, however, that the offence need not be proved to have been committed on the precise day laid in the information, although it must be proved to have been within the time limited for the prosecution. Ante, 171. 1 Salk., 378.

The particular manner in which the offence was committed must be set forth and described in the manner directed by the act creating it an offence, that it may appear to come within its provisions. Ld. Raym, 1368. Str., 497, 686. In all cases the subject matter of the prosecution should be clearly and distinctly described, so that it may appear to be within, the jurisdiction of the justice. Cowp., 640. 2 Bl. Rep., 1146. 1 East, 637. When there is a defect of jurisdiction in this respect, the whole proceedings would be void and no appeal would be necessary. 8 Term Rep., 178.

Regularly the conviction ought to show the kind of process by which the defendant is brought into court and the manner of his appearance, in order to show that jurisdiction of the person was duly obtained. 19 Johns. Rep., 39.

It is a fundamental rule in all cases, that the party should have notice of the proceedings against him before he is convicted; and, unless the law in the particular case requires that he should be brought before the justice by warrant, he should be summoned in fact. 1 Scam. Rep., 515. 4 Bl. Com., 282. But

it is said that the summons need not be set forth in the conviction where the defendant appears, for the defendant's appearance will in this case, as in other cases of process, cure not only all defects and informalities in the summons, but also the want of a summons. 1 Saund. 262 c, note (1.) Str., 261.

It should appear that the evidence was given in the presence of the defendant. 6 Term. Rep., 75. Yet it has been held that, if it appear in the conviction that the evidence was given the same day that the defendant appeared and pleaded, the court will presume that it was given in his presence. 1 Saund., 263, note (1.) This, however, seems to be questionable, 1 East, 648, unless the proceedings appear to have been continuous. 8 Term Rep., 284. 4 Barn. & Ald., 616.

A conviction not stating the offence to have been proved on oath, is bad. 2 Barn. & Cres., 600. And so it would be if the adjudication exceed the cause of complaint. 3 Barn. § Cres.,

857.

Although a statute should direct a conviction to be upon the oath of one or more credible witnesses, without adding, or by the confession of the offender, yet a conviction upon his confession before the justice has been held to be sufficient. Str.,

546.

Where the defendant confesses the charge, it seems to be sufficient only to state in the conviction the information, the defendant's appearance, the confession, and adjudication. But a confession will extend no farther than to the facts charged in the information; therefore, if the offence be not brought by the information within the statute upon which the offence is founded, the defendant's confession will not make the conviction good. 1 Burr, 605.

According to the practice in England, it is said that it is necessary that the testimony of the witnesses should be set forth particularly in the conviction, that the superior court may judge whether the justice has convicted on proper evidence. 5 Dowl. & Ry., 489. 2 Burr, 1165. 8 Term Rep., 220.

Upon removing proceedings in cases of summary convictions before justices of the peace by writ of certiorari, we have no statute requiring justices of the peace to return the evidence.

The certiorari to remove a conviction is in effect a writ of error, for the facts or merits upon which the proceedings took place cannot be discussed in the court above, but merely the form and sufficiency of the proceedings as they appear upon their face. 5 Term R., 358. 8 Term Rep., 542. 6 Wend. Rep,, 564.

A certiorari brings up the record only, and not the testimony, unless required by statute. 8 Cowen's Rep., 13. Its office is merely to remove the record, of which the testimony is not a part.

An inferior tribunal, however, is bound to return so much of the facts of the case as will enable the superior court to de

termine whether such tribunal had jurisdiction of the subject matter adjudicated upon. 6 Wend. Rep., 564.

It is apprehended that the circuit courts of this state have the power to review the proceedings of all inferior tribunals, to pass upon their jurisdiction, and to review all legal decisions made by them, but not their determinations upon questions of fact, which are conclusive unless an appeal or power of review is given by statute. Id. Raym., 469, 580. 2 Scam. Rep., 273.

There must be a judgment in the conviction stating not only that the defendant was guilty, but, likewise, adjudging the fine or forfeiture to which the party is subjected. It has always been considered essential that there should appear that a judgment was pronounced, and that the same in substance should be precise and certain. Paley on Conv., 206. And even in cases where a forfeiture or punishment would be the legal and imperative result, yet that the justice must adjudicate that the same has been incurred, although he had no discretion or power to prevent that result. Str., 858. 2 Burr, 1163. 8 Mod., 175. 7 Term Rep., 238.

If a statute require a conviction in a penalty, and then add that, on default of payment, the party shall be subject to certain corporeal punishment or imprisonment, it suffices to adjudge the payment of a prescribed penalty without noticing the contingent punishment, which must be the subject of a subsequent application to the justice; 3 Maul. & Sewl., 331; and if the offender do not pay the penalty, the justice may commit him afterwards if he refuse to pay. 1 Saund., 263, b, (1.) Where there are several offences charged and set forth in the complaint or information, if the justice convict of all, his conviction should be in the plural," of the offences aforesaid," or he may adjudicate upon each separately. If there be several offences charged, a conviction, stating that the defendant was guilty of the offence aforesaid, would, it has been considered, be void for the uncertainty which of the several offences was referred to. 3 Term Rep., 249. When the justice intends to convict of one of several offences charged, he must be particular in showing which, and should in terms acquit the defendant and dismiss the complaint as to the residue.

Where the statute upon which the conviction is founded distributes the penalty in certain proportions, it is sufficient to state generally in the adjudication that the penalty shall be distributed as the statute directs. 1 Salk, 383. But where the statute leaves it discretionary in the justice to distribute the penalty in such proportion as he shall direct, the distribution forms part of the judgment, and must therefore appear in the conviction itself. 2 Term Rep., 96.

Where a statute authorizes a justice of the peace before whom any proceedings may be had to award the costs of such proceedings against any person who may be convicted, he