
    The People, at the relation of Tremper, against the Judges and Supervisors of the County of Ulster.
    ^ ternathemanbcendulya&re gularly served, affidmdtof11 such service, will issue a peremptory mandamus without compelling a return to the first writ.
    AT the last term, an alternative mandamus had issued, directed to the defendants, and no return having been made, Émott now read an affidavit, stating that it had been served ^ delivering a copy thereof to each of the defendants, and at the same time shewing the original, and moved that a peremPt0i7 mandamus should issue.
    
      Gardinier, and Van Ness, contra,
    contended that ape- , , i -i remptory mandamus could not issue until a return was made to the first writ. The rule should be for a return to the first mandamus, as in other cases, where a writ is not returned, a rule is obtained, requiring the person to whom it was directed, to return it in a certain time, or that an'-attachment issue.
    
      Emott and Ilarison in reply.
    The alternative mandamus is like a rule to shew cause, and as copies have been duly served on all the parties, -and no cause shewn,-it is regular to issue a peremptory writ. A mandamus is not like ordinary process, nor governed by the same rules. It is a high prerogative writ.
   Per Curiam.

It is not requisite that we should go through ■ the process and delay of rules and attachments, in order to compel a return to the first mandamus. The alternative in it, was intended for the benefit and.convenience of defendants. As the first writ has been regularly served, we may, at. our discretion, order a peremptory mandamus; but as the defendants may not have had a sufficient time to meet together and make their return, we are disposed to allow them a further day for that purpose.

The counsel, thereupon, agreed on the 15th day of April; and the court ..ordered, that if the return was not made on that day, the relator might sue out a peremptory mandamus.  