This case is brought before us by common-law writ of certiorari allowed by a circuit court commissioner. It appears from tbe return that tbe plaintiff in error has by a justice of tbe peace been adjudged a disorderly person, and required to enter into recognizance for ber good behavior for one year, and that she has done so under protest. Tbe disorderly conduct consisted in being keeper of a bawdy bouse. She complains that tbe justice refused on ber motion to quash tbe complaint as insufficient; that be received evidence which was not strictly admissible according to tbe rules of law; that be refused to allow ber to make ber statement to tbe jury after tbe prosecutor bad made bis summing up, she not having offered to make one before, and that be charged tbe jury upon tbe law. Little need be said upon any of these complaints.

Tbe complaint was sufficient. A copy is given in tbe margin,* and it will be seen to be in tbe general form *416commonly made use of in such cases. Stratton v. Commonwealth 10 Met. 217; Tiff. Cr. Law by Howell (2d ed.) 250.

We cannot in cases of this sort review the rulings of the justice on the reception of evidence, and hold him to the same strict rules which are properly enforced in courts of record. All we can undertake to do is to see that injustice has not been committed by erroneous rulings. Of that we find no evidences in the record. There was evidence, entirely unexceptionable in character, sufficient to warrant a conviction, and none received of a questionable nature which would have, been likely to prejudice her.

If plaintiff in error desired to make a statement to the jury, she should have made it at the proper time, before the summing up commenced. When she asked leave to make it afterwards, she appealed to the discretion of the justice, and cannot complain of his decision.

The charge of the justice could not have prejudiced this party. He did little more than to state to them what the nature of the case was, and to inform them that the whole case was submitted to their decision. No other allegations of error seem to us to require attention.

The writ of certiorari must be quashed as improperly issued.