delivered the following opinion of the Court: In this case it appears that Bell moved the County Court for a judgment against Singleton, a constable, for not making the money upon and not returning an execution within twenty days.

Several exceptions have been taken to the judgment by the counsel for Singleton. The act of Assembly of 1801, under the provisions of which this judgment has been rendered, authorizes a motion to be made in the County Court next succeeding the failure of the constable to collect the money. Upon a careful examination of the record nothing is found by which we can ascertain, whether the motion was made at the next County Court' after the failure or not. This, it seems to us, is a point relating to the jurisdiction of the Court; and for the defect in relation to it we must reverse the judgment.

We understand the rule of law to be that, in these summarry proceedings, enough ought to appear upon the record to show that the Court have jurisdiction upon the cause ; but that, after the jurisdiction is given, if the record leaves it doubtful whether the inferior court acted correctly in conducting or deciding the cause, we will then presume that the judgment is right.

In this cause, could we have discovered that Singleton had notice of the motion and contested it, we would not reverse, although the record is silent upon the question whether the motion was made at the next Court; because we should not in that case think it material.