
    Board of County Commissioners of Las Animas County v. Bond et al.
    1. Upon suggestion of diminution of the record, the materiality of the alleged defect will not in general he inquired into.
    3. A writ of cwtiorari was allowed to go when the transcript of record omitted to show that'a writ of attachment had indorsed hereon the interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff in error as garnishee, and the answer thereto.
    
      Error to County 'Court of Las Animas County.
    The defendants in error sued an attachment out of the probate court of Las Animas, on the 10th day of July last, under which the now plaintiffs in error were summoned and charged, as garnishees. To reverse this judgment they prosecute this writ of error.
    Mr. Aechibald, for defendant in error,
    suggested diminution of the record in two points: That the transcript returnéd heretofore omits to show, as the fact is, that the interrogatories, exhibited to the now plaintiff in error, and the answer thereto were indorsed upon the writ of attachment in the court below. Also, that by the said transcript it appears that the answer to said interrogatories were given on the 3d day of July, whereas in truth, the same was given on the 23d day of July, and he prayed for a certiorari commanding the county court to certify a full transcript.
    Mr. Yeaman, for plaintiff in error,
    stipulated to admit the alleged diminution as to the second point, and that the record might be treated as amended according to the suggestion ; as to the first point he insisted that whether the alleged diminution exists or not is immaterial.
   Per Curiam.

As to the second point of diminution alleged, the stipulation of counsel of plaintiff in error will be entered of record, and may supply the place of the certiorari and return. The record will be amended in this point according to the defendant’s suggestion.

As to the first point in which the transcript is alleged to be defective, the writ may go. The materiality of the alleged defect will not in general be inquired into on suggestion of diminution. Reed v. Curry, 40 Ill. 73.

It is unnecessary, however, that the county court should-certify matters already before us. The writ will, therefore, direct the county court to certify whether the writ of attachment has indorsed thereon the interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff in error as garnishee, and the answer thereto, or either of them. Counsel for defendant are advised to frame the writ, for which a precedent may be found. 2 Cow. 38-9.

Writ of certiorari allowed.  