
    George W. Earl v. Mary Cotton et al.
    
    No. 15,578.
    (96 Pac. 348.)
    1. Practice, District Court — Appointment of Guardian ad litem — Answer. It was not an abuse of discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem and permit him to file, an answer after the evidence was introduced but before the case was decided.
    2. - Approval of Service by Publication. It was not an abuse of discretion to approve the service of publication on some of the defendants after the evidence was admitted.
    Error from Riley district court; Sam Kimble, judge.
    Opinion filed June 6, 1908.
    Affirmed.
    
      John E. Hessin, and John Clarke Hessin, for plaintiff in error.
    
      James V. Humphrey, for defendants in error.
   Per Curiam:

The demurrer to the petition was properly overruled. We find nothing substantial in the claim of error in the admission of testimony. Besides, the cause was tried to the court without a jury.

There was no abuse of discretion in appointing a guardian ad litem and permitting him to file an answer after the evidence was introduced and before the case was finally «decided, nor in approving the service 'of publication on the other defendants after the evidence was submitted.

The other assignments of error relate to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. On a material issue of fact there was a conflict of evidence, and the decision of the trial court can not be disturbed.

The judgment is affirmed.  