
    CACHE COUNTY, Respondent, v. FRED J. KIESEL, Appellant.
    Appeal.— Bill op Exceptions. — Settlement by Appellate Court. — In this case the supreme court refused to settle the bill of exceptions in a case where a contest having arisen over the settlement in the lower court, the matter was brought into the supreme court by an appeal and a motion made in the supreme court to settle the record.
    Appeal from an order granting a new trial in the district court of the fourth district, Hon. James A. Miner, judge. The facts were as follows:
    A jury rendered their verdict in the case for the plaintiff, and as soon as it was rendered one of the attorneys for. the plaintiff arose and stated to the court that on any theory of the case the verdict was wrong, and suggested that the court had power on its own motion to set the verdict aside. The court thereupon did set the verdict aside, and the clerk entered the order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, as made upon the motion of attorneys for the plaintiff. On a subsequent day of the term the court ordered the record corrected to show that the court made the order on its own motion. The attorney for defendant, appellant herein, objected and appealed and made a motion that the supreme court settle the bill of exceptions in the case, and furnished the stenographer’s notes of what took place in court, -when the verdict was set aside. The attorneys for the respondent made no resistance to the motion.
    
      Mr. A. R. Hey wood, for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. Evans and Rogers, for the respondent.
   The court refused to settle the bill of exceptions, and the motion for a new trial then stood upon the record, which showed the granting of a new trial by the court on its own motion, and the appeal was thereupon dismissed, attorney for the appellant not objecting thereto.  