
    The State v. The Judge of the Court of Probates of St. James.
    A rule supported by affidavit, taken on a Judge of a Court of Probates, to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued to compel him to pronounce a judgment on a case which had been submitted for decision more than twelve months previously, will be made absolute where no cause is shown by the Judge.
    On the 14th of July, 1843, Joseph Henry Yanderlinden applied to the Supreme Court for a rule on J. J. Roman, Judge of the Court of Probates of St. James, commanding him to show cause, on the fourth Monday of November following, why a writ of mandamus should not be issued to compel him to pronounce a judgment in a suit instituted by Louis Huard, as tutor of Vanderlinden, then a minor, and others against Caroline Chapdu and others. The application alleged, that the case had been submitted, by the counsel on both sides, for decision, in the spring of 1842; and that no decision had yet been rendered, notwithstanding repeated applications to the Judge. The facts stated by Yanderlinden were supported by his affidavit.
    
      Blache, for the applicant.
   Martin, J.

In July last, the Judge of Probates of the Parish cf St. James, was ordered to show cause on the first day of the November term, why a writ of mandamus should not issue, commanding him to give judgment on the petition of Joseph Henry Vanderlinden, &c. Our writ appears to have been served on the Judge on the 11th of August last, and he has shown no cause.

It is, therefore, ordered that the rule be made absolute.  