
    
      Ex-parte Geter.
    
      Petition for Mandamus.
    
    1. Mandamus; lohen answer to rule nisi will not be considered.— Where upon the filing in the Supreme Court of a petition for mandam,us to a judge of a circuit court, there is a rule nisi awarded, and the answer of the judge to said rule is not upon transcript paper, as is prescribed by the rules of practice of ihe Supreme Court, such answer will not be considered; and the petition having made out a prima facie case for the relief prayed, and ro cause being shown why temporary mandamus should not be issued, the writ will be awarded in accordance with the prayer of the petitioner.
    Kitt Geter filed his petition addressed to the Justices of the Supreme Court, asking; for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directed to the judge of the tenth judicial circuit, commanding him to proceed to hear and determine the motion for a new trial, made on the part of the petitioner in the case of Kitt Geter v. The Central Coal Company, which was pending in the circuit court of Jefferson county, and which motion, it was alleged in the petition, the said judge of the circuit court of Jefferson county, had refused and declined to hear. Upon the filing of petition, there was a rule nisi award - court filed an answer which was upon ordinary legal cap ed. In answer to the rule nisi the judge of the circuit paper, used for the typewriter, and was not upon the transcript paper, as required by the rules of practice of the Supreme Court. Under these circumstances and in view of the decision of the court, it is unnecessary to set out in detail and at length the grounds set forth in the petition for the issuance of the writ of mandamus, as prayed for; and it is likewise unnecessary to set out the facts of the case.
    Frangís D. Nabers, for petitioner.
    No counsel marked as appearing for respondent.
   MoCLELLAN, C. J.

On the filing of this petition, we were of opinion that it presented a prima facia case of peremptory mandamus to- the judge of the Jefferson circuit court commanding him to hear and determine the motion for a new trial made by the plaintiff in the case of Kitt Geter against the Central Coal Company, which had been tried in said court and which on jury and verdict, judgment had been rendered for the defendant, and we, therefore, awarded a rule nisi to said judge commanding him to proceed with the hearing of said motion or to show cause by a day named why a peremptory mandamus should not be issued in that behalf. A paper purporting to be the answer of said judge to said rule nisi has been filed with the clerk of this court, but it is not- prepared in accordance with the rule of this court in respect of the character of paper upon which it is written; and we, therefore, do not consider it in passing on the petition. Being still of opinion that the petition makes a prima facie case for the relief prayed, and no' cause against awarding peremptory mandamus being shown by the respondent, the writ will be awarded in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

Peremptory mandamus awarded.  