
    The People at the relation of Thompson vs. The Judges of the Court of Common Pleas for West-Chester.
    AT a previous term, Woods had moved for and obtained a rule to ftay proceedings on a writ of error in this court, until the common pleas in Weit-Cheiler could be moved For leave to file a plaint mine pro tunc, the want of which had been the error affigned here. Application had been made to that court For fuch purpofe, and was refufed by them, on which Woods obtained the rule here to fliew caufe why a mandamus ftiould not iffue to compel them to allow fuch application; and now
    
      Munro fhewed caufe.
    
      He infilled that the court below had always h diferetion in cafes of this kind, and that in the prefent inflance, having confidercd the judgment before them as unjuft, had refufed the appi A/aon. on that ground, and that therefore it was not a proper cafe to grant a mandamus.
    
   Per Curiam.

The court below have indeed a diferetion, but it is a legal and not an arbitrary one. We always allow a bill to be filed nunc pro tunc when error is brought and that affigned for caufe.

Rule abfolute.  