
    State ex rel. Bessie vs. Halsey, Circuit Judge.
    
      January 9
    
    January 30, 1912.
    
    
      Change of venue: Demand,: Sufficiency.
    
    Where, under subd. 6, sec. 2619, Stats. (1898), the county in which the sole defendant resided was the only proper place of trial of an action, a demand by him that the trial be had within said county, naming it, “for the reason that the said defendant, at the time of the commencement of the action and for many months prior thereto, resided and still resides in such county,” was sufficient under sec. 2621, although it did not in terms state that said county was “the proper county.” Anderson v. Arpin H. L. Co. 131 Wis. 34, distinguished.
    Mandamus to the Judge of Branch No. 1 of the circuit court for Milwaukee county.
    
      Peremptory writ awarded.
    
    The cause was submitted for the relator on the brief of 'Rusting •& Rusting, and for the respondent on that of Gliclcs-man, Cold & Corrigan.
    
   Per Curiam.

Within twenty days after the service of a summons and complaint in an action for slander and libel the defendant served upon tbe plaintiff’s attorneys a demand for a change of tbe place of trial of said action to Winnebago county, “for tbe reason that tbe said defendant, at tbe time of tbe commencement of said action and for many years prior thereto, resided and still resides in said county of Winnebago.” There was no consent to tbe change. Tbe defendant moved for an order changing tbe place of trial and tbe court denied tbe motion, apparently upon tbe authority of Anderson v. Arpin H. L. Co. 131 Wis. 34, 110 N. W. 788. Tbe cases are, however, distinguishable. In tbe Anderson Gase there were two counties to either of which tbe defendant was entitled by statute to remove tbe cause for trial. Tbe instant case is of such a nature that tbe statute gives tbe defendant tbe right to remove it to only one county, namely, Winnebago county, named in tbe demand. Under tbe facts in tbe instant case Winnebago county is by statute tbe proper county, and it would be quite a technicality to bold that tbe movant must ratify tbe statute by again declaring in bis demand what tbe statute has already declared. Tbe demand must be held sufficient. Tbe circuit judge will therefore vacate bis order denying tbe motion to change tbe place of trial and enter an order granting said motion as provided by statute. A peremptory writ of mandamus is awarded to that effect against tbe respondent, but without costs.  