
    HAMILTON vs. HODGKISS.
    An appeal will not be dimissed for want of reasons if by affidavit or otherwise sufficient cause is shewn to authorise a certiorari.
    This was an appeal from the county court. Trimble for the appellee. moved to dismiss the appeal ; no reasons having been returned, under the authority of the provision contained in the 63d section of the court law,  which provides that be- fore the granting any appeal whatever the attorney praying the same, shall certify to the court in writing reasons for his motion, with his opinion that the same are good and sufficient in law, why such appeal ought to be granted ; which certificate signed with the name of said attorney, shall make part of the record, and be transmitted with the other transcript of the cause to the superior court.
    Scott, for the appellant,
    suggested diminution, and laid sufficient ground to induce the court to believe, that reasons had been filed in the court below, upon which he prayed for a certiorari.
    In reply it was said by Trimble, that it had uniformly been the practice to dismiss appeals for want appeals for want reasons ; that it was the duty of the party to see that they were brought up and that it would be improper for the court to admit proof of any circumstances to shew why they were not. This would be destroying the rule of law.
    
      
      1794. ch. 1.
    
   Per Curiam.

The practice has been settled to dismiss appeals for the want of reasons, but this is founded in the presumption that no reasons were filed in the court below, but when this presumption is destroyed by proof that they were filed, surely this court would do wrong to dismiss the appeal, and thus prevent an examination of the cause before the superior court, which is the object of an appeal.

If sufficient cause be shewn by affidavit, or otherwise a certiorari ought to issue

Motion to dismiss overuled and a certiorari awarded.  