In Chase v. Watson, Okla. 294 P.2d 801 (1956) (at page 805), we said, `It is not questioned that within the power of court to regulate the conduct of a trial it was largely within the discretion of the court to determine the necessity of recess and to order a recess or postponement of further consideration of the case for a reasonable time.' And in Montgomery v. Moore, Okl., 292 P.2d 1040 (1955) we said with reference to a jury trial which was recessed for a period of nine days: `Such a long postponement in the course of a trial is not to be favored. But it must depend on the circumstances of each case whether such a postponement has any importance on appeal, or what, if any, prejudice resulted from such postponement, or whether the court abused its discretion in permitting or ordering such a postponement.

In Chase v. Watson, Okla., 294 P.2d 801 (1956) (at page 805), we said, "It is not questioned that within the power of court to regulate the conduct of a trial it was largely within the discretion of the court to determine the necessity of recess and to order a recess or postponement of further consideration of the case for a reasonable time." And in Montgomery v. Moore, Okla., 292 P.2d 1040 (1956) we said with reference to a jury trial which was recessed for a period of nine days: "Such a long postponement in the course of a trial is not to be favored. But it must depend on the circumstances of each case whether such a postponement has any importance on appeal, or what, if any, prejudice resulted from such postponement, or whether the court abused its discretion in permitting or ordering such a postponement.

See In re Greenback (Greenback v. Dixon), 207 Okla. 30, 246 P.2d 733. On the other hand, should the trial court entertain the view upon such inquiry that all prior orders entered in this proceeding were merely interlocutory and no adjudication of dependency had been made until the decree of January 18, 1962, was rendered, appellants would be entitled to a trial by jury under the provisions of 10 O.S. 1961 § 102[ 10-102]. Montgomery v. Moore, Okla., 292 P.2d 1040, 1042. The trial court's judgment dismissing the appeal is reversed and cause remanded for disposition not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.

Herein, in the mere fact that a recess was of the duration of a work-day week, we find there was no abuse of discretion. See Montgomery v. Moore, Okla., 292 P.2d 1040. In the absence of any showing of any misconduct of any of the jurors in such time we find no resulting prejudice because of such recess.

The supreme court recognized that a judgment concerning an attempt by grandparents to obtain custody of a child portions of Title 10 is subject to res judicata. Montgomery v. Moore, 292 P.2d 1040 (Okla. 1955). In Montgomery, the supreme court found res judicata inapplicable to the particular trial court order before it.