Lord

Judgment was entered in the court below in favor of the plaintiff on February 20, 1889, for *160 the sum of $774.74 and costs, and the defendant appealed therefrom to this court on April 8, 1889.

The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the verdict of the jury covers all the issues, and the judgment follows the verdict; there is, therefore, no merit in the appeal from the judgment.

The notice of intention to move for a new trial was not filed or served until March 9, 1889, more than ten days after entry of the verdict and judgment, and the proposed statement on motion for a new trial was not served on the attorney of defendant until April 25,1889. The judge of the court below declined to settle the statement, on the ground that neither the notice of intention nor proposed statement was served in time. Defendant thereupon appealed from the order refusing to settle the statement.

There is no doubt that the steps taken by defendant in his proceedings for a new trial were not within the time required by law, and that the statement, if settled, could not have been used in support of his motion. This his counsel concedes. It is claimed, however, that on…