Goodwin

This is an appeal from the judgment which followed the sustaining of the demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Appellant’s principal grievance would appear to be that the ruling of the court sustaining the demurrer was made in his absence, he being “at the time busy in another department.” In response to this it is shown that upon no occasion when the pleading of plaintiff’s attorney was under attack, did he appear to defend it. He neither appeared upon the motion to quash service, upon the motion to set aside and strike his complaint from the files, upon the hearing of the demurrer to his amended complaint, nor upon the hearing of the demurrer to the second amended complaint, which was sustained without leave to amend. And, finally, it is shown that the demurrer, called for hearing at 10 o’clock a. m., was not reached until 2:30 ■ of the afternoon of the same day. It is not, however, so much a matter of surprise that plaintiff’s attorney should have absented himself from the hearing on the demurrer, as that he should have filed the complaint to which the demurrer was interposed.

The complaint charges that plaintiff is a married man; that he was engaged in the…