TACOMA RY. & POWER CO. v. GEIGER

TACOMA RY. & POWER CO. v. GEIGER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 14, 1906.) No. 1,289. 1. Appeal — Assignment of Error — New Trial — Refusal to Grant. The refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial cannot he made the subject of an assignment of error in the Circuit Court of Appeals. [Ed. Note.' — Eor cases in point, see vol. 3, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, § 3864.] 2. Courts — Federal Courts — Judicial District — Division of State. The division of the state of Washington into two judicial districts left ihe then existing Circuit and District Courts restricted only as to territory and intact as to all other respects. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Western District of Washington. B. S. Grosscup, Charles O. Bates, and Walter M. Harvey, for plaintiff in error. Edward E. Cushman, for defendant in error. Before GEEBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWEEY, District Judge. [MAJORITY — ROSS, Circuit Judge.] ROSS, Circuit Judge. That the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial is not the subject of an assignment for error here has been decided too often to require a citation of the decisions. If the assignment to the effect that the court below erred in overruling the defendant’s “challenge to the jurisdiction of the above-entitled court at the time of the hearing” of the motion for a new trial can be considered, it is disposed of by the decision of this court at the last term in the case of the Seattle Electric Company v. Hartless et al., 144 Fed. 3T9, where we held that the division of the state of Washington into two judicial districts left the then existing Circuit and District Courts restricted only as to territory, and intact in all other respects. The remaining assignments of error relate only to the proceedings upon the trial of the case in the court below, concerning which there is no bill of exceptions. Motion to dismiss denied, and the judgment affirmed.