Violation or nonob- servance of established rules and practices. The want of adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of proceeding; consisting either in omitting to do something that is necessary for the due and orderly conducting of a suit, or doing it in an unseasonable time or improper manner. 1 Tidd, Pr. 512. And see McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168, 19 Sup. Ct. 644, 43 L. Ed. 936; Emeric v. Al- varado, 64 Cal. 529, 2 Pac. 418; Hall v. Mun- ger, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 113; Corn Exch. Bank v. Blye, 119 N. Y. 414. 23 N. E. S05; Salter v. Hilgen, 40 Wis. 365; Turrill v. Walker, 4 Mich. 1S3. “Irregularity” is the technical term for every defect in practical proceedings, or the mode of conducting an action or defense, as distinguishable from defects In pleadings. 3 Chit. Gen. Pr. 509. The doing or not doing that, in the conduct of a suit at law, which, conformably with the practice of the court, ought or ought not to be done. Doe ex dem. Cooper v. Ilarter, 2 Ind. 252. In canon law. Any impediment which prevents a man from taking holy orders.