
    [No. 11244.
    Department Two.
    August 31, 1886.]
    JOHN PERRY WILLS, Respondent, v. RHEN KONG, Appellant.
    I&ew Trial—Statement—Presentation for Settlement—Time for. — The defendant, having duly served Ms proposed statement on motion for a new trial, to wMch the plaintiff had duly served amendments, presented the same to the judge for settlement fourteen days after the service of the amendments. No notice was given to the plaintiff of the presentation. The judge refused to settle the statement because it had not been presented in time, and because no notice of the presentation had been given. The defendant thereupon engrossed the statement, embodying therein all of the proposed amendments, and presented it to the judge for settlement thirty days after the former presentation. Held, that the engrossed statement was a new statement, and that the judge had no authority to settle and allow it, as the time for the service of a statement had passed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Colusa County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
    The facts are stated in the head-note and opinion of the court.
    
      John C. Deuel, for Appellant.
    
      H. M. Albery, for Respondent.
   The Court.

In this cause, the judge refused on-objections of plaintiff’s counsel to settle and allow the statement on motion for a new trial presented by defendant.

The objections of the counsel for plaintiff were that the defendant had not complied with the statute in procuring the judge to settle the same.

Prior to the refusal of the judge to settle the statement, amendments had been proposed to it by the plaintiff. After such refusal, defendant engrossed the statement with the proposed amendments, and presented the engrossed statement to the judge for settlement, and the judge, against the objections of plaintiff, settled and allowed the statement.

The judge having once refused to settle the statement, the matter was ended so far as that officer was empowered to settle it. The engrossed statement was then a new statement presented for allowance, and the time for the service of a statement having long passed, the judge was not authorized by the statute to settle and allow it.

The statement must, then, be disregarded.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment and order are affirmed.  