76 N.C. 9 | N.C. | 1877
There was some dispute between the counsel, whether a supplemental statement at the foot of the case as stated and signed by the counsel for plaintiff and defendant, was a part of the case for this Court. The supplemental statement is not signed by either counsel and, therefore, unless it had been agreed to be a part of the case, we can decide the case only on the signed statement and the record.
The action was instituted, doubtless, under the Rev. Code, ch. 17, § 7, which was improvidently brought forward in Bat. Rev. ch. 16, § 10, as the existing law, and thus misled the plaintiff. But, by the Const., Art. IV. § 33, Justices of *10
the Peace are excluded from all jurisdiction of actions founded in tort. This action belonging to that class, the Justice had no jurisdiction.Bullinger v. Marshall,
There is error.
PER CURIAM. Venire de novo.