
    Moses Hoagland v. George Schnorr.
    Where the docket of a justice of the peace shows a trial, and then proceeds, “Therefore it is considered,” etc., without noting any continuance, the date of the judgment will be held to be the. same as that of the trial, although the appeal bond recites the judgment as of a later date.
    Error to the district court of Holmes county-.
    Schnorr sued Hoagland before a justice of the peace of Holmes county. The case was continued from April 10 to April 21 1863, at 10 o’clock a. m., for trial.
    The transcript of the docket of the justice shows that, at the time appointed for trial, the parties appeared before him, and produced their witnesses, who were sworn and examined, and then proceeds : “ And after hearing the testimony, it is therefore considered by me that the plaintiff recover of the defendant,” a specified sum and costs.
    On May 2, 1863, the defendant filed an undertaking with the justice for an appeal from his judgment to the common pleas. The undertaking recites that: “Whereas, on the 22d day of April, 1863,” the plaintiff recovered a judgment, etc.
    In the common pleas the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the undertaking therefor was not entered into within ten days from the rendition of the judgment. The court sustained the motion and dismissed the ^appeal. The district court, on error, affirmed the judgment of dismissal.
    To reverse the judgment of the district court the present petition in error was filed in this court.
    
      G. F. Voorhes, for plaintiff in error:
    
      Gritehjield & Uhl, and Feed, for defendant in error. ■
   By the Court:

The undertaking was not in time. The judgmenl must be held to have been rendered on the day of trial, as there appears to have been no continuance entered. The recitals of the undertaking are no evidence of the date of the judgment. The transcript alone must be looked to for that. We see no error in the judgment below.

Judgment affirmed.  