
    Ford v. Williams and another.
    In an application by a defendant for a certiorari under the G7th section of the act to organize Justices’ Courts (Hart. Dig., art. 1753) the facts which show the vice in the cause of action, or which constitute the grounds of defense, must be stated. It must be shown also that there was an attempt to make these grounds available *t tho trial, nr the reasons why they were nob presented must be alleged. Vague general statements of tho injustice of the cause of action or of the validity of the defense present no grounds for judicial interposition. (Note 07.)
    The case of O’Brien v. Dunn (Galveston, 1851) cited and approved.
    Note 57.—Clay v. Clay, 7 T., 250; Hope v. Alley, 11 T., 259; Inge v. Benson, 15 T., 315; Peabody v. Buentillo, 18 T., 313; Robinson v. Lakey, 19 T., 139; Givens v, Blocker, 23 T., 633: Cordes v. Kauffman, 29 T., 179.
    Appeal from Smith. The -judgment rendered by tho magistrate in this suit was removed by certiorari into tiie District Court. As a ground (and tiie only one) for tho grant of the writ it was averred that the cause of action was wholly unjust, and that petitioners believed that their grounds of defense were good, and that, unless they could have a fair and impartial trial, it would operate as a hardship on them.
    The plaintiff (tiie appellant in this court) moved to dismiss the writ on several grounds, one of which was that there was no substantial showing of equity in tiie petition, there being merely a naked averment of equity. The motion to dismiss was overruled.
    
      Ochiltree Jennings, for appellant.
   Hemphill, Ch. J.

The 67th section of the act to organize Justices’ Courts, (art. 1753, Dig.,) regulating the issue of the writ of certiorari and proceedings thereon, is in force in all of its provisions not conflicting with the decision in tiie case of Titus v. Latimer; and this section inhibits tiie grant of the writ ninety days after the entry of judgment by the magistrate, and unless tiie applicant shall first give bond with two or more sufficient sureties, conditioned as prescribed in tho statute. And tiie applicant is required to make an affidavit in writing, setting forth sufficient cause to entitle him to tiie writ. This is, substantially, a requisition that tiie showing of the petition should be sufficient and be verified by the oath of the applicant. The causes deemed sufficient are stated with some minuteness of detail in O’Brien v. Dunn, decided at Galveston, 1851. It was said that the petition must show on its face the injury or error complained of by tiie petitioner, or that by some accident which the petitioner could not control he liad not made the defense before tiie justice going to tiie merits which he could have made but for the reason assigned, &o.) and if no merits are shown in tiie petition, or it has not been taken out and returned in time, or tiie conditions on which it was granted have not been complied with, the writ should be dismissed.

Tiie petition in this case shows no error in fact or law in tiie proceedings or judgment complained of. Vague general statements of the injustice of (he cause of action or of the validity of the defense present no grounds for judicial interposition.

Tiie facts must be stated which show tiie vice in the canse of action or which constitute his grounds of defense. It must be shown that there was an attempt to make these grounds available on the trial, or tiie reasons why they were not presented must be alleged. None of these matters have been averred, and the motion to dismiss should have been sustained. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment be reversed and the cause dismissed.

Judgment reversed.  