
    H. M. Burtiss et al. v. The La Belle Wagon Company.
    New Tbiae — Motion, Overruled — Presumption. Where the record is silent as to the time of filing a motion for a new trial, and it appears that such motion was not considered until more than two months after the verdict and judgment were rendered, and no reason is assigned for such delay, it will be presumed by this court, for the purpose of upholding the judgment of the district court, that the motion was not made within the statutory time, and that the court committed no error in overruling such motion. (Hover v. Tenney, 27 Has. 133, and authorities there cited, followed.)
    
      Error from Allen District Court.
    
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Oscar Foust & Son, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      G-. A. Amos, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

Green, C.:

The record of this case discloses the fact that a trial was had in the district court of Allen county on the 8th day of November, 1886, and on the same day the jury returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff below; a judgment was accordingly rendered thereon. On the 26th day of January, 1887, the court considered a motion for a new trial and overruled the same; the record is silent as to when this motion was filed. The affidavits used upon the hearing were filed on the same-day the motion was heard.

As it does not appear from the record that the motion was filed within the statutory time, and no reason is assigned for the delay, it will be presumed by this court, for the purpose of upholding the verdict and judgment of the district court, that the motion was not filed within the time required by §308 of the code. (Bartlett v. Feeney, 11 Kas. 593; Nesbit v. Hines, 17 id. 316; Lucas v. Sturr, 21 id. 480; Hover v. Tenney, 27 id. 133.)

The judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.  