Sprague

In People v. Sprague, post, p. 491, we said that if a hill of exceptions was presented or filed, on due notice to the District Attorney, after the expiration of the statutory time and its extensions, it was the duty of the Judge to examine the affidavits accompanying the bill, and if it appeared therefrom that defendant had reasonable excuse for the delay, to proceed to settle the bill. It was also intimated that if the Judge refused to settle the hill and the defendant appealed from the order denying his application for settlement, this Court might on appeal review the action of the Judge, and re-examine the affidavits used at the application below.

Inasmuch, however, as when such application is made the Judge of the Court below must, in the first instance, pass upon the fact as to the existence of reasonable excuse for the delay, this Court cannot by mandamus compel him to determine the question in a particular manner. The cases are numerous in which it has been held that mandate may not he resorted to for the purpose of commanding an officer clothed with discretion to *409 enter a particular order or judgment—in other words, the writ cannot be made the means of depriving such…