Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/218

 upon an inspection of the record. In State v. Kemen, 61 Wis. 494, 21 N. W. Rep. 530, it is said: “Upon a writ of certiorari nothing can be inquired into except what appears of record in the inferior court or body, and upon.the return no parol testimony is allowed to establish any issue made by the return to the allegations contained in the petition for the-writ.” Weaver v. Lammon, 62 Mich. 366, 28 N. W. Rep. 905, was certiorari to a justice of the peace. He made return of a transcript of the record, and also of certain matters not of record, and these matters contradicted the record. Said the court: “The judgment as it appears entered in the docket must control. The record of his judgment in his docket cannot be contradicted by his return to the writ.” That case cannot be distinguished in principle from this case, except that the return of the extraneous matter was an official act of the justice before his term expired. Miller v. McCullogh, 21 Ark. 426, was an attack by certiorari ona justice court judgment. The petition for the writ alleged that the defendant was not served with process in the proper township. The transcript sent up by the justice in-obedience to the writ showed service in the proper township, but the defendant in the certiorari proceeding admitted in open court that service was not made in the township stated in the return. Held, that on certiorari the record was conclusive even as against such admission. See, also, Prall v. Waldron, 2 N. J. Law, 135; Inhabitants, etc., v. Commissioners, 5 Allen 13; Cassidy v. Mellerick, 52 Wis. 379, 9 N. W. Rep. 165. It is seldom that a case can be cited so entirely in point to the matter under discussion as is this last case from Wisconsin. That case was certiorari to a justice of the peace. There had been an adjournment in the case, and it was claimed that the justice failed, prior to such adjournment, or while the parties were present, to enter in his docket any place to which said cause was adjourned, but that at some subsequent time he had added to the docket entry the following words: “At my office in the town of Poysippi. S. B. Hatreck, Justice of the Peace.” It was also claimed that on the adjourned day the case was not called at the office of the justice, but at a town hall some miles distant. The justice was required to make a return as to these