
    Durden v. Trubee, for use.
    By an order passed in term, on September 16th, a motion for a new trial was set for a hearing during the next week at the superior court of an adjoining county, and the movant was allowed “until the hearing ” to make out and file a brief of the evidence. On September 22d, an order was passed postponing the hearing of the motion till September 28th, and allowing the movant till that time “to perfect the brief of evidence.” On September 29th, it was ordered that the hearing of the motion be postponed till October 13th, and that movant have until then to “prepare and submit the brief of evidence, without prejudice to the right of the other side to move to dismiss the motion on the ground that the brief of evidence had not been prepared as theretofore required.” No brief of evidence was ever filed or submitted to the court until October 13th, and the motion for a new trial was then dismissed for want of a brief of evidence.
    There was no error in dismissing the motion. The order of September 22d limited the time within which the brief of evidence might be filed to September 28th. The court had no authority to pass the order of September 29th, and even if rightly granted, it expressly preserved the right of respondent to move to dismiss the motion for a new trial for failure to file in time the brief of evidence, as required by previous order.
    August 14, 1894.
    Motion for a new trial. Before J ad ge J enkins. Morgan superior court. September term, 1898.
    J. H. Holland, for plaintiff in error.
    Roster & Butler, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  