Ex parte Brown

Where the defective”11 the 0. P. may peM h at1” any after a motion uTdeniefL tml

Brown, the relator, sued Miller before a justice of Dutchess county, who rendered judgment for Brown, of about 30 dollars. Miller appealed; and a verdict passed in his favor of 250 dollars. A motion for a new trial made Brown was denied; and the proceedings stayed by order, for several terms, with a view to repeat the motion f°r a new trial. Finally, at the late October term of the C. P., that court quashed the appeal, on Brown’s motion, upon the ground that the amount of the original judgment before the justice was not recited in the appeal bond. now moved for a mandamus''commanding the judges of the court below to vacate the order quashing *the appeal; and to proceed in the cause. The motion was not opposed; but