36 Vt. 105 | Vt. | 1863
Pleas in abatement require the highest attainable accuracy and precision as .well as fullness of statement, and should leave nothing to be supplied by intendment or construction. They belong to a class which is regarded as being odious, or at least as not entitled to favor, because their office and object is to defeat suits upon grounds unconnected with their merits. Hence any inaccuracy or defect, whether of, substance or form, in pleas of this kind is fatal.
We regard the plea in abatement in this case as being defective in substance. The cause for abating the writ as set forth in the plea is that the writ was served on the 16th of September, 1862, “ by Ervin J. Whitcomb, a constable of the town of Ludlow in the county of Windsor, and in the town of Plymouth in the county of Windsor, and not in the town of Ludlow, &c.— and avers that said Whitcomb “ was not authorized by the authority signing said writ, or by any sheriff or any other authority to serve said writ. Without this, that the writ was served at any other time, or in any other manner, nor was the service of said writ accepted by the defendant in any manner.” And the defendant further says that the said Whitcomb “ was in no way authorized to serve said writ, and had no legal authority to serve the same, all of which will more fully and at large appear by reference to said writ.” The plea concedes that the
The plea being, in erar judgment,-defective in substance, we find no occasion to pass upon the objections which have been urged against it in respect to its form. The judgment of the county court by which the plea was held to be insufficient is affirmed.