Domingues

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only question necessary to a determination of this cause is, whether the term of Court at which it was tried, was legally holden.

Previous to the Act of May 19th, 1853, the District Judges in various Districts of the State, were authorized to appoint the times of holding the District Courts, in the comities of their respective Districts.

By the Act referred to, the time of holding said terms was fixed by law, and all laws, or parts of laws, in conflict with the Act were repealed. The time for holding the District Court for the County of Los Angeles, was fixed for the third Monday of July, by the Act of May 19th. Under the provisions of the former Act, the term was appointed [187] to commence on the first * Monday in May; in accordance with which the Court was commenced and continued its session until the 12th, at which time it adjournecl to the 24th of said month, after which time this suit was heard and determined.

It will be remembered that the Act referred to was passed between the first Monday of May and the 24th of said month, the day on which the adjourned term commenced.

It is contended that, inasmuch as the term was legally…