This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1850 Excerpt: ... Albany, October, 1840.--Webber V. Gay. court has ever looked beyond the process with a view to see if he was cogni zant of the irregularity. The point was thrown out by the chancellor in Parker v. Walrod, 16 Wendell, 519, but no definite opinion expressed. The general rule as there admitted is, if the justice has jurisdiction of the subject matter, and if the process is regular upon its face, he is protected. To go beyond this, would lead to a new and troublesome issue, which would tend greatly to weaken the reasonable protection to ministerial officers. Their duties, at best, are sufficiently embarrassing and responsible; to require them to act or not, at their peril, as they may be supposed to know or not the technical regularity of the party or magistrate, seems to me an innovation upon previous cases, and against the reasons and policy of the rule. The experience of the officer will soon enable him to determine whether the process is in regular form or not, or he can readily obtain the ne 488 cessary advice; but he must be presumed wiser than "the magistrate if even a knowledge of the proceedings would enable him to decide correctly, if they happened to be erroneous. I think a new trial should be granted as to the officer. Ordered accordingly. Howell & Strong Vs. Babcock's Executor. Where a testator is indebted and dies within six years after the accruing of a cause of action against him, and within eighteen months after his death a suit be brought against his executor who pleads the statute of limitations, the proper course for the plaintiff is, to reply that the cause of action did accrue within six years, And not to plead the facts specially that the cause of action accrued within six years before the death of the testator, arid that the suit was co...