The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1880-01-01
No. ,662 Henry Green VS. N Buikley-
Error from Leavenworth county-Affirmed.
BY THE COURT HORTON, c. J.
BY THE COU.
HORTON, c. J.

BY THE COURT HORTON, C. ].
I. It is not Necessary that the trial Of cases
involving Issuing Of facts shall be in order
Precedent csses may be continued or laid at
the heel of the dooKsl, or other definite dis
positions made of them and subseq aent cases
2. fla trial judge refuses to settle and sign
. true bill of exceptions In q case tried before
him, any party tendertoa the same can en-.
of the bill, but the failure or refusal OF the
trial judge to settle and sign q bin of excep-
lions Is no ground for the reversal OF the
judgment rendered In the case.
g. party having q matter In litigation
before District Court, who relies upon the
opinion or st itement of an attorney, in no
way connected or interested In his cause, as
to the time precedent cases will consume in
their trial, before his case Can be reached,
does so at his peril. 1.-THE opinion or state-
ment Ofsuch attorney does not prove correct,
then, although the party is surprised at the
early trial OF his case, he Las no valid reason
to complain.
case pending in the District Court for trial
upon certain issues OF fact, and which has
been assigned for trial on q definite day.
must, in order to protect MS rights, be pres
emit al the court during all the session on
said specified day and at hours of the court
every su oseQuent day, until there Is . final
disposition of the cause.
S. A defendant who was sutton and attorney
in q case at issue in the district COURT, WAS
absent when his case was called between
and O'Clock D. m at the re-cOnvening of
the court at the EXPIRATION o. noon recess.
Soon after the case had been disposed Of and
alter the court bad en,ered upon the trans
action Of other business the said defendant
came into court and demanded trial. This
| YVES refused. He then filed a motion for
new trial On hearing this was denie5. 1t
appeared that his absence, at the time WAS
owing to q belief on hts part that prior cases,
appear n2 on the published list Of causes "A.
signed for hearing, would consume great
portion Of the afternoon and that he, also re-
| lied on the statement OF an attorney in the
case pending before the court, at the noon
adjournment, that such case would consume
an hour and q half upon thej re-convening of
court after dinner, and therefore, thatit was
not necessary tor him TO be prese mt before
O'Clock m to ettond TO his case: held, As
the case was called and disposed of in its reg
ular order on the docket ana as the trial
court with full knowledge of all the facts in
the Gaze, has refused TO reopen the case and
denied a new trial that this court cannot say,
under the circum stances, that there was any
abuse of discretion on the part. OF the trial
Judge, or such surprise as d.manded tho
ruling of the court to be reversed
6 defendant, by not appearing at the
time his case comes on TO bs heard on q reg
ular call of the docket valves his right 10 q
jury trial. (Soc. 50. civil code)
On motion for new trial, the mis CON-
duct OF the prevailink party was alleged to
consist Of obtaining judgment in his favor by
his own perjury, He testified orally in the
court. Afterwards eN paJte sfndavits were
filed pro and con as TO his testimony. Such
afidav1ts we're conflicting. The tr al ju &c
the showing made, will not disturb the de-
cisi0n Of the trial court.
All the Justices conc airing.
A true copy. Attest: Co BROWN,
IL s Clerk Supreme CJur..