
    McCrory v. Boyd.
    X. When plaintiff fails to declare within the time prescribed, defendant is entitled to judgment of non pros, unless the former shew good cause against'it.
    2. Refusal by the Court below to nonpros a plaintiff, is an exercise of discretion not revisable in this Court.
    Boyd sued McCrory in trespass, in the Circuit Court of Madison county. At the appearance term, the time for filing declarations was extended. After the expiration of the time for declaring as extended, McCrory claimed an office judgment of non pros. At the subsequent term, this judgment was set aside by the Court below, on a shewing of what it deemed a sufficient excuse for not declaring within the limited time, and the plaintiff was permitted to proceed in his suit. A bill of exceptions was sealed, which presented the facts.
    Craighead, for the plaintiff in error,
    submitted the case on briefs.
   By LIPSCOMB, Ciiiee Justice.

The only error assigned in this case, is that the Court below refused to perfect an office judgment of non pros, claimed after the time for filing the declaration had expired, arid permitted the plaintiff to file his declaration. The defendant was certainly entitled to a judgment of nonpros, unless the plaintiff could shew good cause against it, and the suffi-°f that shewing, rested in the sound discretion of Court, as much so as if it had been for a new trial, or for a continuance. If the Court should even fail to exercise that discretion wisely, its determination is not sub* to revision in this Court; it is not a decision that would finally dispose of the case. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  