Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-06-22
record.

as requested by the appellant. The Sec
ton of the Practice Act above quoted
does not auth Orize any such practice,
and we have been unable to find any
other provision which does. If the court
did not MAKE the findings required by
the section quoted, or had made defective
findings, the appellant had ample remedy |
under the requirements of another sec
ton to correct the action of the court in
the premises, and in case of refusal to |
make the correction, the matter could
have been, by following the plain direc
tons Of the statute, presented to us for
review. Section of an Act to regulate
appeals in the courts of justice in tits
State, Com. Laws, Sec. 1858, expressly pre-
scribes the method of presenting such
matters to the appellate court. 1t pro-
vides that in cases tried by the court
without jury, no judgment shall be re-
versed for want of findings or for a de-
fective finding of fact unless exceptions
be made in the court below to the finding
or to tbe.want of finding. and in case of
defective finding, the particular defects
shall be particularly and specifically des-
ignated; and upon failure of the court
below to remedy the alleged error, the
party moving shall be entitled to his ex-
ceptions and the same shall be settled by
the Judge as in other cases. 1t further
prescribes the time within which such
exceptions shall be filed. The record
does not show that there was a want of
finding or defective finding; neither does
it show that any of the steps required by
| the statute were taken to correct any want
of findings or defective findings, or that
any exception or other action was taken
in the matter further than is indicated
above.
This matter has been before this court,
considered and determined, and under
the cases presented and decided we must
hold that the appellants CLAIM is with
out merit.
McClusky V. Gerhauser, New. 81:
Whitmore v.:Shiverick, 3 New. 3l2;
State V. The.tManhatten Company, 4
New. 1876;
Warren v. Quill, 9 New. 263;
Welland V. Williams, 81 New. $50.
1t appears that after the testimony had
been taken by the District Court, Judge
Talbot presiding, at Winnemucca, it was
stipulated by counsel as matter of con-
venience, that the oral argument be
heard at Reno, Washoe County, Nevada;
that pursuant TO such agreement, argyll
J ment was had at the court room Of t !.
anG 18th days of January. 1860. During
the argument, or at least during part OF
the argument, by the courtesy and upon
the invitation of Judge Talbot, Judge
Curler sat iwith Judge Talbot, and was
J consulted by him regarding the case. Nc
objection was made oriinterposed at the
time to this action. Subsequently this
-. fact was presented on motion for a new
: trial by the affidavit of counsel, and the
l refusal of the court to grant new tria
1 because of this alleged misconduct O
Judge Talbot or Judge Curler, the recor6
not distinctly showing which of the jud
: ges was guilty of the misconduct, is as
e signed as error. The record shows tina
!. the judgment was rendered by the court
g Judge Talbot presiding, in Winnemucc;
8 in the following March. 1t is hardly
s necessary to discuss this matter. Th
s rule relied upon and the authorities citet
l. of this record. The text Of the 18th Am
l. Il Eng. Ency. of Law, End Ed, page III
n cited, no doubt states a correct rule O
It law. A judge has no power to delegat
10 his authority to act; it does not appea
i, that the judge in this action delegated hi
n power, or attempted to delegate his powe
l. to any person He acted in the premise.
The eases cited ara in, hartnnpv with III
le text. In Van Slack V. The Insuranc
N Company, 80 Wis. 800, it was held that O
Of an appeal from a judgment signed by tn
t. clerk where the record shows that Oh tn
'e trial in The court below the judge of Thu
se court left the bench and that his plae
ne was assumed by another person, a men
IN Der tOf the bar of the court, but not
or judge, who tried the cause, and upo
Id whose consideration the judgment W:
Id rendered, such judgment was void. ]
or Britton v. Fox, 80 Ind. 81, it was he'll
lie that judge could not, because he W;
NV weary" orally authorize an attorney
g receive verdict during his absence. I'll
IN other cases cited are to the same effe
and require no further consideration.
tn During the progress of the trial the a
ia pellant was sworn and offered himself
us witness to testify in support Of the
M sues made in his behalf. The facts to
ed proven by the testimony of the appella
act are set out in the record. He offered
I'LL show by his own testimony that he Ike
The set of books consisting of day boz
lal OF original entry, a journal and ledg
all in which all transactions relating to
The milling, merchandising and sheep bu
ere ness we're recorded at the time they
ely CURED; that these books we're true a
urt correct, and contained a partnership
the count between the witness and Will,
Stock, deceased, showing all the trans
tons in connection with certain ran
and the sheep in controversy; that
ady books and the transactions therein exte
over and cover a period from 1880
about 1896; that he, the witness, furni
ed the decedent in his life time bills