
    [393] THE STATE v. THE CORPORATION OF NEW BRUNSWICK.
    1. It is not necessary that previous notice should be given to the corpo0 ration that an application is to be made for a certiorari to'remove a by-law.
    2. If the court are informed that it is intended to try the validity of a 'by-law of a corporation, it'is not necessary to lay before them any other ground of application for a certiorari to remove it.
    
      Aa. Ogden and Frelinghuysen moved,
    on the prosecution of Mr. "Vandyke, one of the citizens of New Brunswick, that a certiorari be issued to the mayor, &c., of New Brunswick to return a certain by-law of the corporation, in order to try its validity.
    
      Leahe and R. Stockton objected—
    1st. Because if a motion is necessary, as the counsel making it appear from the course they have adopted to suppose, notice should have been given to the corporation.
    2d. The court ought not to award a certiorari on the mere prayer of an individual, unless he will previously, lay some cause before them tending to show that he is or may be affected by the operation of the by-law, and is, therefore, entitled to question its validity.
    
      Ogden and Frelinghuysen in reply.
    The motion is of course, and requires no previous notice to be given to those who it may hereafter appear may be interested. As to a sufficient cause being shown, the court are informed that a question as to the legality of the law is intended to be brought before them for adjudication, and this allegation, coupled with the ground that the prosecutor has been injured by it, is all that is necessary.
   Per Curiam.

There is no necessity for a previous notice to be given of such a motion. If the writ issues improvidently, it is a ground of defence, and may be taken advantage of on the return. We think there is sufficient information before the court to induce us to allow the writ. Let a certiorari issue.

Cited in State v. Hanford, 6 Hal. 71; State v. Mor. Can. & Bkg. Co., 2 Gr. 427; Camden v. Mulford, 2 Dutch. 55; State v. Jersey City, 5 Vr. 400.  