Martin v. Mendel

Russell; J'.

The sole question presented by this writ of error is whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the motion for new trial upon the ground that no brief of the evidence had been filed as required. It appears that a judgment was entered in favor of Mendel against Martin on. January 7, 1910. A motion for new trial was made, and the court thereupon passed an order providing that the movant should have until the hearing to prepare and present for approval a brief of the evidence, and that the judge might enter his approval upon the brief of evidence at any time in term or in vacation.…