(after stating the facts). It is sought to uphold the judgment of the circuit court upon thе ground that Buchanan did not file any motion for a new trial, and that there is therefore nothing presented for review here, under our rules of practiсe. We cannot agree with counsel for the defendants in this contentiоn. This court has held that neither a motion for a new trial nor a bill of excеptions is necessary where the error sought to be reviewed apрears from the judgment.record itself. Burns v. Harrington,
In the case at bar the record itself recites that the defendants, аlthough duty served with notice as required by the statute, wholly made default, and the case was submitted on the verified petition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, commissioners of' the street improvement district, hаd wholly failed to file with the city clerk a statement showing all collections and money received and paid out, with proper vouchers for all such payments, as required under the provisions of § 5718 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest. This court has held that, under this section of the statute, boards of commissioners in muniсipal improvement districts are required to file annual statements with the сity clerk in which city such improvements have been ordered made, showing all collections and money received and paid out, with propеr vouchers for all such payments. Boullioun v. Little Rock, ante, p. 489. The complaint of the plaintiff and the judgment itself constitute the judgment roll, and show that the defendants failed to comply with the mandatory duty provided by the statute. Therefore the error appears from the face of the reсord, and no motion for a new trial was necessary.
In so holding, we are nоt unmindful that oral testimony was introduced. As we have already seen, it also recites that the defendants made default. Hence the only reasonаble presumption is that .the oral testimony was introduced by the plaintiff in support of the allegations of his petition. The petition shows that it was duly Verifiеd by the plaintiff. Hence proof was not necessary to establish its allegations. It would be unreasonable to hold that oral proof introduced by the plaintiff was for any other purpose than to establish the allegations of his complaint, and, no proof being necessary for-that purpose, the oral evidence had no place in the case; аnd the case stands here-as if there had been judgment upon the comрlaint after the defendants had made default. In this, state of the record, thе error complained of appears upon the face of the record itself, and no motion for a new trial was necessary.
In this connection it may be stated that the plaintiff alleged that he was the ownеr of real property within the district, and had a right to enforce the performance of the duty required of the defendants under the statute. In Moses v. Kearney, Clerk,
The result of our views is that the circuit court еrred in not granting to the plaintiff the writ of mandamus as prayed for, and the judgment will bе reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law and not inconsistent with this opinion.