
    Snyder v. Vignaux.
    A letter addressed to and served upon the defendant in certiorari, in the following words.: “I have been waiting for an answer from you as to whether you will agree to set aside the judgment in the Yignaux case. The certiorari has been granted and returned to the J. P. court. I have also paid the judge the cost which have accrued to date, and, of course, the jury fee paid out by you will be given back. I think, in view of all the circumstances, that you will be none the loser to set .this aside and let us have a final trial before a jury. I saw Mr. Kosser and submitted the matter to him, and I am certain he is in favor of it. We can try it tomorrow before a jury, or next month, just as you please. Please answer ”: is not a sufficient compliance with section 4059 of the code, which requires written notice to the defendant, not only of the sanction of the writ of certiorari, but also of the time and place of hearing, at least ten days before the sitting of the court to which the same is returnable.
    October 30, 1893.
   Judgment reversed.

Certiorari. Before Judge Marshall J. Clarke. Fulton superior court. September term, 1892.

Rosser & Carter, for plaintiff in error.

Simmons & Corrigan, by brief, contra.

The letter quoted in tbe head-note was produced in resistance to a motion to dismiss tbe certiorari for want of the notice required by the code, §4059. The motion was thereupon overruled.  