after stating the case as above, proceeded as follows : — The law gives jurisdiction to a single justice, for any sum under one hundred dollars, if due by signed account. The judge could not judicially know,, that the sum of eighty-six dollars and seventy-five cents, for which the judgment was rendered, (and said to be due *540 by a book account,) was in fact due by an open account. The words “ book account,” do not carry with them any definite legal import or meaning; they may, for what we know, comprehend a signed account. In M'Farland v. Nixon, 4 Dev. Rep. 141, this Court said, “ it must be-intended, that the plaintiff alleges his claim to be one of which the justice had jurisdiction; and therefore it cannot be otherwise understood than for a debt due by signed account. The warrant being the plaintiff’s declaration, no evidence could be rightly received by the justice which did not sustain it.” Now we cannot see, from any thing in this case, that the evidence exhibited before the justice did not sustain the warrant; we cannot see, or legally and judicially understand, that the book account was not a signed account. We must take it (from the case made,) that the justice did have jurisdiction, as the. negative is not shown. The judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed..