REPORTS OF CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT, APRIL TERM, 1873. [No. 3,463.] S. A. KUSEL v. WILLIAM SHARKEY. STATEMENT ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. - A statement on motion for a new trial must contain the specifications particularly pointing out wherein the judgment is not warranted by the evidence, or wherein the facts found are contrary to the evidence, or what the errors in law were, if the new trial is asked on said grounds, or it will be disregarded. IMPLIED FINDINGS OF FACT.-If the facts found are silent upon some material issue, the law implies that the Court found upon that issue in such a way as to support the judgment. FACTS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW TRESPASS. In replevin for hogs distrained under the Act of March 26th, 1857, the Court found that the "defendant had caught the said hogs in traps on his land, and had hauled them in wagons to the pen," and that certain persons selected by the Constable, without notice to the plaintiff and in his absence, and who were not. sworn nor acting on the testimony of sworn witnesses, appraised the damages "committed by said hogs in destroying fifteen acres of grain which defendant claimed was destroyed by said hogs:" Held, that such facts do not tend to prove the trespass. APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, County of Butte. REPORTS OF CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT, APRIL TERM, 1873. [No. 3,463.] S. A. KUSEL v. WILLIAM SHARKEY. STATEMENT ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. A statement on motion for a new trial must contain the specifications particularly pointing out wherein the judgment is not warranted by the evidence, or wherein the facts found are contrary to the evidence, or what the crrors in law were, if the new trial is asked on said grounds, or it will be disregarded. IMPLIED FINDINGS OF FACT.-If the facts found are silent upon some material issue, the law implies that the Court found upon that issue in such a way as to support the judgment. FACTS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW TRESPASS. — In replevin for hogs distrained under the Act of March 26th, 1857, the Court found that the "defendant had caught the said hogs in traps on his land, and had hauled them in wagons to the pen," and that certain persons selected by the Constable, without notice to the plaintiff and in his absence, and who were not. sworn nor acting on the testimony of sworn witnesses, appraised the damages "committed by said hogs in destroying fifteen acres of grain which defendant claimed was destroyed by said hogs:" Held, that such facts do not tend to prove the trespass. APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, County of Butte. Opinion of the Court-Crockett, J. (4) The action was replevin, to recover one hundred and seventy-five hogs. The plaintiff had judgment. The defendant moved for a new trial, and his statement was filed January 24th, 1872. The following were the only specifications in the statement: "Upon the above statement defendant moves for a new trial herein, and as grounds of his motion for a new trial, and as assignment of errors on motion for new trial and appeal, makes the following specifications: "First. The Court erred in rendering a judgment for gold coin. "Second. The findings of fact and conclusions of law. drawn from the facts are contrary to the evidence, and are not sustained by the facts found, nor the law as drawn from said facts. "Third. The judgment is erroneous, as being contrary to the evidence, the finding of facts, and the law of the case.' The attorneys stipulated that the statement was correct. The motion was denied, and ho appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. The other facts are stated in the opinion. IV. C. Belcher and Burt & Sexton, for Appellant. L. C. Granger, for Respondent. By the Court, CROCKETT, J.: The appeal in this case must be decided on the judgmentroll alone. The motion for a new trial was founded on the ground: first, that the findings were not justified by the evidence; second, errors in law occurring at the trial; third, that the findings were contrary to the law and the evidence. But there were no specifications in the statement as required by section one hundred and ninety-five of the Practice Act, |