Lancel

This is an appeal from an order refusing to change the place of trial. The defendants made two motions. The first motion was made under section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That motion was denied, the defendants answered and thereafter the defendants made a motion to change the place of trial from Alameda County to Los Angeles County to promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. (Code Civ. Proe., see. 397, subd. 3.) That motion was also denied and from that order the defend ants have appealed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In passing on such a motion it is of primary importance to ascertain what the issues are, and having done so, it will then readily appear what witnesses will be necessary for the parties to present their respective cases. An examination of the pleadings discloses that there was hardly a single issue presented. Nearly every allegation in the plaintiff's amended complaint was admitted because the defendants had failed to interpose any proper denials. (Fogarty v. Fogarty, 129 Cal. 46, 50 [ 61 Pac. 570 ]; Nolan v. Hentig, 138 Cal. 281, 283 [ 71 Pac. 440 ]; Scott v. Superior Sunset Oil Co., 144 Cal. 140, 142 [ 77 Pac.…