Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/702

 WILLIAM LANGER, Respondent, v. THE COURIER NEWS et al., Appellants.

Appeal and error—venue—application for change on ground that impartial trial cannot be had is within court’s discretion; denial held not an abuse thereof.

An application for a change of venue on the ground that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the action is pending is addressed to the sound, judicial discretion of the trial court, and the ruling made by the trial court will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion appears. In this case it is held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a change of venue.

Appeal from the district court of Richland County, Allen, J.

Defendants appeal from an order denying a motion for a change of venue.

Affirmed.

Harry Lashkowitz, for appellants.

An order for change of venue is an appealable order. Bolten v. Donavan, 9 N. D. 575; 84 N. W. 357.

An order denying an application for change of venue is appealable because it affects the merits. Robertson Lumber Co. v. Jones, 13 N. D. 112; Kramer v. Heins, 34 N. D. 507; Candy v. Bissell’s Estate 115 N. W. 571; North Dakota Statute.

Our statutes do not prohibit more than one application for change of venue and unless the statutes provide otherwise more than one change of venue can be granted in the same case. 40 Cyc. 179; Hazard v. Wason, 152 Mass. 268, 25 N. E. 465; New Port v. Rowen, 4 Hayw. Tenn. 195; Goodno v. Oshkosh, 31 Wis. 126.

W.S. Lauder and A. G. Divet, for respondent.