Opinion
Department One
Appeal from a judgment for defendants in the Third District Court of the County of Alameda, McKee, J., and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of the same county. Crane, J.
There appears in the transcript a specification of particulars of insufficiency of evidence, signed by the plaintiff's attorney, and following the certificate of the judge to the statement, and indorsed filed as of the same date.
COUNSEL
F. M. Husted, for Appellant.
W. H. and J. R. Glascock, for Respondent.
OPINION
The Court:
Appeal from the judgment in a street assessment case, and from the order denying a motion for a new trial. The notice of intention designated that the motion would be made upon the pleadings and a statement of the case, and upon the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision, and that the decision is against law.
But the alleged statement, as settled and filed, contained no specification of particulars in which the evidence was deemed insufficient, nor any specification of particular errors of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the appellant; it must, therefore, be disregarded. And as the Court below found that there was no publication of the resolution of intention according to law, there is no prejudicial error in the judgment roll.
Judgment and order affirmed.