Meyer

On July 24, 1933, with the permission of this court, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus and prayed for the issuance of an order to show cause, or an alternative writ of mandamus. The question before us ex parte is whether or not an order to show cause will be issued. It appears from the petition that petitioner filed an action against the Pacific Steamship Company in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, and that the issues joined thereon were tried before a jury on the 2d and 3d days of November 1932, and that a verdict was rendered in favor of the Pacific Steamship Company. We take judicial notice of the fact that this verdict was rendered during the July term, 1932-, which began on the first Monday of July and ended at least as early as the first Monday in November, 1932, when a new term of the District Court began, except in so far as the July term may have been extended for the purposes of the ease. 28 USCA § 145. Rule 8 of the rules for the said District Court provide that the term of court in which a verdict is rendered is extended so as to comprise a period of three calendar months beginning on the…