
    Mays and another v. Forbes.
    The dismissal of a writ of error for informality will not bar the prosecution of another.
    Whero the seal of the court is not impressed upon wax over the tie of the transcript the practice is to dismiss, unless the appellant or plaintiff in error should take measures to perfect the transcript. (Note 72.)
    A certiorari is the proper remedy where a transcript is defective for want of a seal over the tie.
    ^ Note 72. — The rulos prescribed by the*Supreme Court for the district clerks in the preparation of transcripts are directory, and will not be enforced so as to defeat substantial rights, pursued with reasonable diligence. (Wright v. Bonin, lü T., 385.)
    Error from Colorado. Motion to dismiss, on the ground (1) that there liad been a former writ of error in same case, which had been dismissed;', and (2) that there was no seal of court over tito tie of the transcript. Motion by the plaintiffs in error for a certiorari to perfect tiie transcript.
    
      B. J. Bivers and N. H. Hunger, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      JS. M. Pease and W. Alexander, for defendants in error.
   Wheeler, J.

The practice of the court lias settled that the having prosecuted a writ of error, which has been dismissed for any informality or defect in prosecuting ir, will not bar another writ of error. The first writ having-been dismissed, it was competent for the plaintiff in error to proceed anew by petition for a second writ.

The requisition of a seal upon the tie of the transcript is for the purpose of preserving the record from the possibility of change or mutilation. Without it the record is incomplete; and the practice has been to dismiss the writ, unless the appellant or plaintiff' in error will take measures to perfect it. But a record thus imperfect has been held sufficient to authorize the awarding of a certiorari for the purpose of obtaining a complete transcript. The application for a certiorari will, therefore, be granted.

Ordered accordingly.  