GEORGE BLACKSTOCK A. JOHNS, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, and His Honor, D. W. B. MORRIS, Resident Judge, Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM RULING IN CHAMBERS UPON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued October 26, 1959. Decided January 14, 1960. When an appellant has failed to appear at the call of a case for hearing, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal. Appellant applied to the Justice presiding in Chambers for a writ of prohibition to the court below in connection with an action of debt instituted by the Republic of Liberia against appellant. The Justice presiding in Chambers ruled that the application for a writ of prohibition should be denied. Thereupon appellant appealed to this Court, en banc, which affirmed the ruling, and dismissed the appeal. No appearance for appellant. Assistant Attorney General J. Dossen Richards for appellee. MR. Court. JUSTICE MITCHELL delivered the opinion of the This Court, on April 25, 1958, during its March term, sentenced George Blackstock A. Johns, defendant herein, for the crime of embezzlement, to imprisonment for one calendar year, a fine of $300 and restitution of the property embezzled. See 13 L.L.R. 143 (1958). Close perusal of the records now before us discloses that the present petitioner in prohibition is the identical defendant in the case of embezzlement referred to, supra, LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 441 and that he served the sentence referred to in the common jail of Montserrado County, paid the fine and was discharged from further detention and confinement. On May 12, 1959, the said George B. A. Johns, as petitioner in these proceedings, filed in the Chambers of Mr. Justice Harris a petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, which we hereunder quote as follows : “1. Your humble petitioner, G. B. A. Johns of the City of Monrovia, County of Montserrado, Republic of Liberia, most respectfully cometh and showeth to the Court, as follows to wit: During the March, 1958, term, he was convicted and sentenced to a fine and imprisonment as well as restitution of the sum so embezzled. “2. The petitioner further says that said sentence of the fine of $30o and imprisonment for twelve months have been fully met and complied with. “3. Petitioner further submits that, in keeping with a decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Liberia during its March, 1959, term in a case of grand larceny wherein the defendant, served the sentence of conviction and fine and was unable to make restitution, said defendant cannot again be imprisoned for said restitution, same being considered res judicata. “Wherefore, your said petitioner prays the issuance by this Supreme Court of a writ of prohibition directed to His Honor D. W. B. Morris, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, or to any other Judge presiding, to desist and refrain from any further proceeding upon said action now at bar against your said petitioner.” Among other legal points raised by the respondent in her returns to the writ thus prayed for, were the following : 1. That the Republic of Liberia was improperly made a party respondent, and that the Judge against 442 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS whom the writ is prayed for, should have been made a party. 2. That the petition does not show any act or acts done by the Republic of Liberia, respondent, which petitioner seeks to prohibit. Upon the filing of the foregoing returns, petitioner sought permission to file an amended petition to include His Honor D. W. B. Morris, Resident Judge of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, which privilege was granted him by the Justice presiding in Chambers, and thereafter a hearing was had thereon. After hearing, the issuance of the extraordinary writ was denied, to which ruling in Chambers petitioner excepted and prayed an appeal before this Court, en banc. The case was placed on our trial docket and assigned for hearing on October 27, 1959; but appellant failed to appear either in person or by counsel. Appellee’s counsel moved the Court to dismiss the appeal under Rule IV, Part 6, of the Revised Rules of this Court (1959), relevant portion whereof is word for word as follows : “If the appellant fails to appear when the case is called for hearing, the Court may on motion of appellee, or on its own motion, dismiss the appeal.” This point made by appellee’s counsel is clearly well taken. But, before concluding this opinion, we reiterate that, whilst it is the duty of this Court to afford litigants before this bar every opportunity to represent their causes, yet our liberality in this respect must not be interpreted as encouragement of outright disregard for the rules of practice and procedure of this Court. The appellee’s motion being well founded, it is hereby sustained ; the appeal is dismissed ; and the ruling made by the Justice in Chambers is affirmed. And it is hereby so ordered. Appeal dismissed.