
    Mitchell v. Russell.
    1. Tbe appellee having prevented the writ of error from being properly prosecuted, his motion for affirmance on certificate was denied.'
    2. And the appellant was permitted todismiss his writ of error, so as to prosecute another.
    Whit of error, from Marengo Circuit Court. The defendant in error, moved for ajudgment of affir-mance on certificate, against which the plaintiff shewed cause and asked leave to dismiss his writ of error, with a view to prosecute another; he made known to the Court by affidavit, that “shortly before the meeting of the Court,” to which the writ of error was returnable, “Russell informed the affiant, who is attornej^ of the plaintiff, that said cause had been compromised between the parties, and requested affiant not to bring up said writ of error and subject him to the payment of the costs of the Supreme Court. The affiant relying upon the statement of the defendant, and with a view alone of saving him the payment of costs, omitted to bring up the record of said cause.
    
      Lyon, for the plaintiff in error.
    Rains, for the defendant.
   By JUDGE COLLIER

The defendant has prevented; the writ of error from being regularly prosecuted, and cannot now be permitted to profit by his own wrong. The judgment of affirmance is therefore denied, and the plaintiff has leave to discontinue his writ of error.  