Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/146

 to preside at a term of court, or to hear and determine any motion, case or cases.

Thus construing the statute, we are next to inquire, whether as a matter of fact, the Judge of the Fifth District was requested to act in this matter for the Judge of the Third District. This question of fact, as already shown, is settled clearly upon the face of the judgment itself; but in the absence of such evidence, or of any written evidence of the request, we should assume, the contrary not being made to appear, that any Judge of a District Court who had signed an order in a case not pending in his own district had, under the statute, lawful authority to do so. Irregularities in the entry of judgments in courts of record will never be presumed. If any exist, they must be brought upon the record, and made to appear affirmatively. There is no showing and no pretense in this case that the Judge of the Third District did not request the Judge of the Fifth District to act. The entire scope of the assignment of error upon this feature is that Judge Rose could not assume jurisdiction to make the order while outside of his own district. This theory, as already shown, is untenable. Our conclusion must be, and is, that the appeal of the plaintiff should be dismissed, with costs, and that the order of the trial court, denying defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, should be in all things affirmed. Such will be the order. Judgment below will be entered accordingly. Al! concur.

(54 N. W. Rep. 316.)