
    Nathan H. Vincent v. Daniel Bowes.
    
      Writ of error — Does not lie to review discretionary order of circuit judge.
    
    The action of the circuit court in denying an application for leave to appeal from a justice’s judgment, under How. Stat. § 7005, on the ground that the appellant was prevented from taking an appeal within the statutory time by causes beyond his control, can only be reviewed on mandamus.
    
    Error to Mecosta. (Palmer, J.)
    Argued October 23, 1889.
    Decided December 28, 1889.
    Defendant brings error from an order denying his application for leave to appeal from a judgment in justice’s court.
    Writ dismissed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Dumon & Cogger, for appellant, contended that the showing was sufficient.
    
      M. Brown, for plaintiff, contended:
    1. Error does not lie in a case like this. It is not a proceeding according to the course of the common law, or analogous thereto; citing Brinsmade’s Appeal, 52 Mich. 537; Fletcher v. Clark, 39 Id. 374; and such a motion as this is a special proceeding; citing McCaslin v. Camp, 26 Id. 392.
    
      2. Capwell v. Baxter, 58 Mich. 571, is the only case where a writ of 'error was issued in such a proceeding as this, and in that case the jurisdiction of the court was not questioned.
   Champlin, J.

Defendant was prosecuted before a justice of the peace in a civil action, ih which a trial was had, and a judgment rendered against him for $60 and costs. He failed to appeal in the time allowed by law, and made an application to the circuit court, under the statute (How. Stat. § 7005), for leave to appeal, alleging that his failure to take one in time arose from causes beyond his control. The granting such leave is in the discretion of the circuit judge, and his action will not be reviewed by us, except upon mandamus, and in cases where we are fully satisfied that he. has abused his discretion.

We are not satisfied that there has been abuse of discretion in this case, on the face of the papers, as made by the petitioner; but, as we cannot review the question upon writ of error, we will dispose of the case by dismissing the writ, with costs

The other Justices concurred.  