
    
      Minutes of Superior Court, letter F. p. 283.
    
      Chambers, 2d July, 1806.
    Joseph Davis et al. vs. David Matthews.
    CERTIORARI.
    This was a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue, to remove this case and its proceédings from the mayor’s court.
    The rule being granted, the defendant’s counsel now offered an affidavit oí William Blogg, clerk of the mayor’s court, that, before judgment had been obtained in the above actions, the defendant had filed, in the office of deponent, an affidavit, stating that he was not a resident of the city of Savannah, but which affidavit could not now be found.
    The plaintiff’s counsel stated, and it was not denied, that the defendant’s affidavit was not, nor the exceptions now upon which the present motion depends, bearing date the 28th Jyne, manifestly could not have been before the court below. He therefore contended, that, if a certiorari should issue in this case, there would not be any matter apparent upon the record, on which this case could reverse the decision below ; for, that the returns made upon the writs by the sheriff of the mayor’s court, were, that he had left copies at the defendant’s most notorious place of abode, and if the defendant is injured he can have red. ess by resorting to the sheriff for a false return. 20 Viner, 354.
    He also contended, that an inferior court is not bound to notice the want of jurisdiction, unless it be pleaded, and if they refuse it, an affidavit may he made of the refusal. Lutw 294. 5 Bacon, 652, as a good ground for prohibition.
    
   per Curiam.

It is ordered, that the rule granted, “ that the plaintiffs respectively should shovv cause, why certiorari should not issue to remove the proceedings of the court of Major and Aldermen, in such respective case,” be discharged.

Rule discharged.

Cuyler, for the rule.

Charlton and Miller, against it.  