
    Peter Smick vs. Samuel G. Opdycke.
    Whore a certiorari has been allowed to remove into this court the record and proceedings in the matter of an insolvent’s discharge, the court, upon the return of the certiorari, may grant a rule upon the Common Pleas to certify whether certain facte did not occur upon the trial of the case before them, which do not appear upon the record. >
    
      This was a certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Hunterdon, to remove the proceedings in the matter of discharge of Samuel G. Opdycke, as an insolvent debtor.
    Upon the return of the writ,
    
      W. Hoisted, for plaintiff in certiorari,
    moved for a rule upon the Court of Common Pleas to certify whether certain facts did not appear, and certain proceedings take place, upon the trial of the cause before them, which were not stated in the copy of the record returned with the certiorari, .and some of which could not regularly appear on the record.
    
      Wall and Saxton, for the defendant,
    contra, said, if the plaintiff had any redress in this case, it could only be by .applying to the Court of Common Pleas, at the time of the trial, for a statement of the case, or to have such matters of fact or proceedings entered upon the minutes of the court, .as he wished to bring in review before the Supreme Court. If he had done all *he could in the court below to obtain a state of the case, and that court would not grant it, then he might apply to this court to aid him, but not until then.
   Chief Justice.

There is a difficulty in getting such proceedings of the Court of Common Pleas before this court, and yet it seems necessary to the due administration of justice that we should enable the party aggrieved to bring them here. Otherwise the writ of certiorari will be a very inefficient remedy. We have allowed rules in analogous cases, on certiorari to justices of the peace, and to the Courts of Common Pleas on appeals. The same course ought to be adopted here.

Let the rule be granted.  