Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-03-21

ceased,
Plaintiffs and Respondents
v.
Theodore Winters, A. c. Winters, L
w. Winters and Samuel Tonga
bauoh,,
Defendants and Appellants
From I'd Judicial District Court, Wash
oe County.
Messrs. Cheney and Massey, attorneys
for Plaintiffs.
Alfred chartz, attorney for Defend
ants.
DECISION
The respondents have moved to dis
miss the appeal from the judgment
because it was not taken within one
year, and to dismiss the appeal from
the order of the district court denying
appellants motion for new trial, also
to strike from the records the state
| ment on motion for a new trial, upon
the ground that the statement was
| not filed within the time prescribed
by law. The appeal from the iudg-
ment is dismissed because not taken
until March, 1905, more than one
year after its rendition on June %,
1903 On that day Judge Curler Ct
the Second Judicial District court
who had tried the case at Reno and
rendered the decree, made in open
court and had entered in the minutes
an order chat all business and all
cases and proceedings that have not
been completed or in the process CT
completion, and all new business that
may be brought before the court dur
ing the absence of the presiding Judge,
be referred to Judge NJ. A. Murphy
of the first judicial district court of
the State of Nevada. and that he be
requested to try. determine and dis
pose of all cases and bu'iness now
before the court in the absence Of the
Judge Of this district"
Pursuant 70 this request Judge Mu"-
| ply occupied the bench IN Reno until
July 81, 1908, when a recess was TAX
en- until a further order Of the court.
There was no other session until
Judge Curriers' return on August 18th.
On July 18th, Judge Murphy. in open
court in Reno, made an order allow
ing plaintiff until August 18th in
which to file objection to findings,
and prepare additional findings. On
August Sd Judge Murphy at Carson
City, and within his own first judi
cial district, by an eX parte order
made without affidavit Of Judge Cur:
lers absence or inability, granted the
defendants until September Is, 1903,
within which to prepare, file and
serve their notice and statement on
i1in I u
sions were made by Judge Curler, but
whether they are effectual depends
upon this order. which respondents
claim Judge Murphy was unauthorized
to make under Section 1877 of the
Practice Act which provides in regard
10 notices and statements on motions
for new trial that the several periods
of time limited may be enlarged nv
the written agreement CT the parties,
Or upon good cause shown by the
court, or the Judge before whom the
case is tried" and under district court
rule XLIII which directs that mo
judge, except the judge having charge
nf the cause or proceeding shall giant
further time to plead, move, or do any
act or thing required to be done in
any cause or proceeding, unless it be
shown by affidavit that such JUDGE i:
absent from the STATE, or f"Cm sons
other cause is unable to act"
Rule XII provides: When any
district Judge shall have entered upor
the trial or hearing Of any cause ~
proceeding, demurrer or motion, Of
made any ruling, order or decision
therein, no other judge shall do any
act or thing in or about said cause
proceeding. demurrer or motion, un
less upon "r.tten request CT the judgz
who shall have first entered upon The
trial or hearing of said cause, proceed
ing demurrer or notion
Section 1913 Of the Compiled laws
passed after section 1917 of the Prac
tice Act as quoted, enacts: The dis
trict judges of the State Of Nevala
shall possess equal coextersive ans
concurrent jurisdiction and power
They shall each have power to hOl'
court in any county of the State
They shall each exercise and perform
the powers. duties and functions .
the court, and of Judges thereof. ant
Of Judges al Chambers. Each judg
shall have power to transact bushes
which may be done in chambers a
. any point within the State. All u
this section is subject to the PROV
: sions that each judge MAJ 6irecJ ar'
control the business in hie own IL
trict, and shall see that ii it prOperl
. performed
We think under the minute orde
and circumstances related, the powe
inherent in Judge Curler to extern
the time of filing the notice and state
ment became conferred upon Judg
Murphy during the formers absence
and that Judge Murphy became tn
Judge in charge, endowed with the al
thority to grant the extension withOu
the presentation Of the affidavit show
ing the absence or inability of Judg
Curle~, as the rule requires before tn
order can be made by a Judge n
having the business in charge.
Judge Curers absence was presun
ed to continue until his return wa
shown and consequently Judge Nu