
    West et al. vs. Jones et al.
    
    A fnotion for new trial was perfected in term time, and a consent order taken allowing it to be heard in vacation, at such time and place as the judge might designate between the then pending March tefm and the first of August following. The judge designatedá time and place. Counsel for respondent stated that he did not wish to be heard. Counsel for movant sent for the papers. At the appointed time, the clerk failed to send the motion. Counsel for movant notified him of the fact; but the papers having been mislaid) did not reach counsel until the judge had left the place. Counsel for movant then asked the judge, by letter, to continue the Case untií the next term, which was done. At the next term the presiding judge was disqualified from hearing the motion, and no action whs taken on it. At the next term thereafter it was called:
    
      Held, that the delay in obtaining a hearing did not result frortl the laches of movant or his counsel, and a motiori to dismiss the motion for new trial was properly overruled.
    September 26, 1882.
   Jackson, Chief Justice.  