Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/897

 SFÀNGLEB V. SELLEBS. 885 �fendants Daniel, Cyrue, and Eliza N. Brown legally appealed the case to the district court of said county j and that the dis- trict court, at its April term, A. D. 1871, tried the case, and found that the allegations of the said plaintiff in his petition •were untrue, and ordered that the petition as to him be dis- missed, with eosts. Whereupon it became the duty of the de- fendant, under and in pursuance of his said employment and contract as an attomey at law with the plaintiff, after said judg- ment, to file a motion for a new trial of said action, in order that said case might properly and legally be taken to the supreme court of the state of Ohio for final adjudication and de- cision therein. Yet the defendant, not regarding his said duty, did not nor would prosecute or manage said action with due and proper care, skill, and diligence; but, on the contrary thereof, prosecuted, conducted, and managed said action in a careless, unskilf ul, and improper manner, in this, to-wit : that the said defendant, after the rendition of said judgment and order in said action against the said plaintiff in said district court, failed, neglected, and refused to make and file in said district court a motion for a new trial in said action, and negligently and unskilfully attempted to take said case to the supreme court upon petition in error, without having previously made and filed a motion for a new trial of said action. �The said defendant, in so attempting to take said case to the supreme court, prepared in said case a bill of exceptions embodying the record, and ail the evidence therein, and after- wards, on the fifteenth day of June, A. D. 1872, applied for and obtained leave to file said petition in error ; and after- wards, at the December term of the supreme court for 1875, the said action came on to be heard upon said petition in error in said supreme court, when said court refused to con- sider said case, and dismissed said petition in error at the costs of the plaintiff, and àffirmed the said judgment and order of the district court, for the reason that no motion for a new trial of said action had been filed, made, and overruled by the district court ; and the plaintiff says that, by reason of the negligence and want of due skill of the defendant in ����