
    The State vs. Uriah W. Clarke, et. al.
    
    'Flic court Held that a writ f of certiorari,J which had been allowed» must be considered as legally allowed, until reversed.
    And that a Judge may grant further time to issue a writ or make up a ■ proceeding, which had been before ordered, at any time, within a year and- a day after the first order, is so usual, and has been so common, that the practice is not to be disturbed at this day.
    UTv -Í.íII3 v*-;ts a motion made in October Term, 1820, before 2\,r. Justice Richardsoti, to grant further time to issue a writ oí certiorari, which writ had been before granted to the defendants.
    The circumstances as they appeared at the time of making the motion, were the following :
    A motion had been made at May Term, 1820, for a cer-itorari, on the part of the defendants, to bring before llie court at the October Term following-, the proceedings of a court, held by certain Justices of the Peace, in a case of forcible entry and detainer, returnable at October Term; which motion was .granted at that time. The defendant’s attorney did -not issue his certiorari; and on the last day 
      oí October Term, 1820, moved for furthci* time to issue his certiorari, which motion ’was granted.
    The order was as follows :
    On motion of Clarke and Singleton-, defendant’s aitor-tiejs, and it appearing to the court that the defendant's counsel was under a mistake or misapprehension as to the compromise or adjustment of this case, for the furtherance of justice between the parties, Ordered, that the rule of this • court, granti d for a certiorari, returnable to May Term last, be extended to next term in October, 15th July, 1S£0.
    The State appealed on four grounds, viz :
    1st. Recause a writ of restitution, as was alleged, had been awarded by the Justices, and possession given to the owners before the certiorari was moved for.
    2d. That having neglected to issue the certiorari, until return day had passed, the defendants had voluntarily abandoned their ease, and should not have been allowed to commence anew, unless by siüisfat íny -aindr*. its to the court, they could shew that they were pn. vent.-d from, issuing a certiorari, by circumstances net within their cen-tro!.
    3d. Because, by the law the}- are not entitled tos certi-orari in any event; the judgment of the court, as to the force and entry, being final ‘and conclusive.
    4th. Because the granting oí the motion was contrary to law, and the circumstances that weic offered against it.
   Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the court.

The leave to issue a writ of certiorari had been given in May Term, 1820, and no appeal was made from that decision : so that the only question at the time of the motion to allow further time was, not whether the writ should have been originally ordered, but simply whether the court could now grant further time to issue a writ which had been before,allowed ; and which, for the purposes oí this motion., must be assumed to have been legally allowed, inasmuch as it had never been reversed ?

That a Judge may grant further time to issue a writ, ot make up a proceeding which had been before ordered, at any time within a year after the first order, is so usual, and has been so common, that the practice is not to be disturbed at this day.

The niotion is therefore refused, unanimously.

Justices Colcock, Johnson, and AW, concurred.  