
    Stephen Moyle v. Norman W. Haire, Presiding as Circuit Judge of Houghton County.
    
      Capias ad respondendum — Sufficiency of affidavit.
    
    
      Mandamus' will not lie to vacate an order quashing a writ of capias ad respondendum on the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit, where the allegations of fraud in the affidavit are hearsay.
    
      Mandamus.
    
    Argued December 12, 1893.
    Denied December 13, 1893.
    Relator sued out a writ of capias ad respondendum from respondent’s court, upon an affidavit in which he averred that, desiring to remit a sum of money to England, he applied to the defendant, who was postmaster at Calumet, Michigan, for a post-office money order for the desired amount, and was informed that defendant could not sell one for that sum, but could sell a bill of exchange, payable in London, England, for the desired amount; that, in answer to relator’s inquiry if there was any difference in sureness and safety between the two modes of sending the money, the defendant assured relator that there was none; that, in reliance upon such representations and statements, relator purchased the bill of exchange, and paid the defendant therefor, and forwarded it to England; that, upon its presentation at the bank upon which it ivas drawn, payment was refused, for the reason that the defendant had no money to his credit at said bank; that the bill of exchange was returned to relator, and presented to the defendant, who refused to refund the money paid therefor; that relator afterwards, and for the first time, learned that the practice pursued by the defendant in selling foreign bills of exchange was, on receiving the money, to request a banking firm (naming them) in Chicago, Illinois, to send a letter of advice to the bank on which the bill was drawn, requesting its payment; that, at the time defendant requested the Chicago bankers to send a letter of advice requesting payment of the bill of exchange sold relator, he sent them a worthless check, which was immediately returned to them protested, and that they thereupon notified the bank upon which the bill of exchange was drawn not to pay it. Upon motion, respondent quashed the writ, and relator applied for mandamus to compel him to vacate such order.
    
      W. F. Riggs, for relator.
    
      Chadbourne & Rees, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The writ of mandamus is denied, on the ground that the allegations of fraud in the affidavit are hearsay.  