J. J. MENDS-COLE, MABEL FAGANS, MAUDE FAGANS-FREEMAN by and through her Husband, GEORGE FREEMAN, Heirs of the Late EDMUND SCHAVERS, Appellants-Plaintiffs in Error, v. His Honor, A. LORENZO WEEKS, Assigned Judge Presiding over the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, S. DAVID NAYREAU, Qualified Land Surveyor, W. 0. DESHIELD, HENRIETTA WILLIAMS-BANGURI, and JAMES DE SHIELD, Heirs of the Late JOHN SCHAVERS,

Appellees-Defendants in Error. APPEAL FROM RULING IN CHAMBERS ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued December 10, 1959. Decided January 15, 1960. 1. An application for a writ of error may be dismissed as materially defective where the parties are wrongly described therein as petitioners and respondents instead of plaintiffs and defendants in error, and the affidavit submitted therewith fails to state that the application was not made for purposes of embarrassment and delay, and the counsellor’s certificate attached thereto fails to state that, in the opinion of counsel, real errors were assigned. 2. An appeal from a ruling in Chambers may be dismissed where the appellant fails to appear for a hearing thereon. On appeal from a ruling in Chambers denying issuance of a peremptory writ of error in an injunction action, appeal dismissed. No appearance for appellants. appellees. MR. Court. JUSTICE MITCHELL D. B. Cooper for delivered the opinion of the When an application is made in assignment of error, if it does not conform with the statutes in the essential pre- 526 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS requisites, the issuance of the peremptory writ may be denied and the petition dismissed for insufficiency in law. J. J. Mends-Cole, et al., the within named appellantsplaintiffs in error, filed a suit of injunction before the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, in its September, 1959, term. They sought to enjoin, prohibit and restrain the above named appelleesdefendants in error from surveying a sixty-acre tract of land, situated in the Long Beach Settlement, City of Monrovia. In accordance with the petition before us, the case was assigned and called for hearing in the absence of both the appellants-plaintiffs in error and of their counsel ; and they contended that the trial Judge was in error to have heard the case in their absence. But another glance at the same petition praying for the issuance of the writ shows that the said plaintiffs in error were served with notice of the aforesaid assignment, and that Attorney Robert G. W. Azango, representing the said appellants wantonly absented himself after the service of the notice had been made on him. We would make an outline of the conduct of this attorney in the court below; but because of the fact that the records show further that the Justice presiding in Chambers, from whose ruling this appeal has been taken was not privileged to probe into the merits of the petition, we feel it unnecessary to do so in this opinion. Upon the service of the alternative writ, the appelleesdefendants in error filed returns in which they attacked the insufficiency of the petition on the following grounds : “I. Because the petition wrongly entitled the parties thereto as petitioners and respondents, whereas, they should have been entitled as : plaintiffs in error and defendants in error. “2. Because the affidavit which is indispensable to a petition in error is defective and bad, in that, it fails to state that the application was not made for LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 527 the mere purpose of embarrassment and delay, which the law mandatorily requires in such cases. “3. Because the counsellors’ certificate attached to the petition fails to state that, in the opinion of counsel, real errors had been assigned.” The Justice presiding in Chambers, after hearing arguments by counsel on both sides, sustained Counts “t,” “2,” and “3” of respondents’ returns which were based upon the foregoing legal grounds, dismissed the petition and denied the issuance of the peremptory writ of error. From this ruling of Mr. Justice Mitchell, made in Chambers for Mr. Justice Harris, who having recused himself, requested Mr. Justice Mitchell to sit, the appellees-petitioners excepted and took an appeal before the bench sitting in full for a further hearing. The appeal was granted without reservations to facilitate a speedy hearing by the relief afforded under the 1956 Code. To avoid undue delay and the thwarting of justice, appelleesdefendants in error, availing themselves of their right under the statutes quoted, supra, made application to the Acting Chief Justice for the hearing of the appeal without delay. This application was granted and assignment made for the hearing of the appeal on December io, 1959. According to the marshall’s returns endorsed on the back of the aforesaid notice of assignment, both parties were duly notified ; but at the call of the case, the appellants failed to appear. Appellees’ counsel moved the Court to dismiss the appeal with costs against the appellants. Under Rule IV, Part 6, of the Revised Rules of this Court (13 L.L.R. 697), appellees’ motion is hereby granted ; the appeal is dismissed ; and the appellants are hereby ordered to pay all costs in the case. And it is so ordered. Appeal dismissed.