
    Moorman v. Moorman.
    Venue: change of: when to be granted. It is error to refuse an application for a change of venue on the ground of the prejudice of the court, when such application is made, in all respects, in conformity to law.
    
      Appeal from Keolmle District Court.
    
    Friday, September 25.
    The abstract shows that there was pending in the court below an action to modify a decree relative to the custody of a child. Appellant filed a motion and an affidavit verified by herself and three disinterested persons, not related to her nearer than in the fourth degree, stating that the judge of said court was so prejudiced against her that she could not obtain a fair trial before him, and asking for a change of venue. She further states, as a reason for not sooner" making the motion, that she was not aware of such prejudice until but a short time before she made it.
    The court overruled the motion, and gave defendant the custody of the child. Plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error the overruling of her motion for a change of venue.
    
      Fonda <& Donnell and Fairall, Boal c& Jaelcson, for appellant.
    No appearance for appellee.
   Day, J.

The application for a change of venue seems to have been made, in all respects, in conformity to the law. We have held that in such case, unless the record discloses something to justify the action of the court, it is error to refuse a change of venue; Miller v. Laraway, 31 Iowa, 538. Nothing affording snch justification appears in the record. The judgment must he

Reversed.*  