
    T. G. Wright v. M. W. Haley.
    Plaintiff brought suit on a promissory note in the county court (as organized under the Constitution of 1866), but judgment was there rendered against him, and he failed to perfect his appeal to the district court. Petitioning for a certiorari, he alleged that Ihe note was just and unpaid, and represented that he was not present at the trial in the county court, on account of feeble health, old age, and his residence in are-mote portion of the county; that a letter from his attorney advising him of the judgment of the county court had miscarried, and he had not otherwise heard of the judgment until too late to give the bond for appeal. Reid, that the petition disclosed all the diligence requisite under the circumstances, and there was no error in overruling the defendant’s motion to dismiss the certiorari. (Norris v. Rhodes, 25 Texas, 627, tcited by the court.)
    Appeal from Red River. Tried below before the Hon. Win:ston Banks.
    The facts are sufficiently apparent.
    Ho brief for the appellant has reached the Reporter.
    
      Wright ¿f Sints, for the appellee.
   Ogden, J.

The only assignment of errors in this cause is, “ That the court erred in refusing to quash the certiorari, and dismiss the cause, because the petition for certiorari failed to show such diligence on the part of the plaintiff as entitled him to the relief sought.” We think the petition showed all the diligence which, under the circumstances, could have been exercised, and upon the authority of Norris v. Rhodes, (25 Texas, 627.) we are of the opinion that he was entitled to the equitable relief sought. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.  