The opinion of the court was delivered by

A judge of the superior court whose term of office expired on the second Monday of January, 1893, cannot be required- by mandamus to settle and certify a statement of facts on appeal after the expiration of his term. *286The act of January 21,1893 (Laws, p. 6), does not purport to do more than to authorize the ex-judges to settle- and certify, it does not, and could not, require them to do anything.

The application for a writ in this case is, therefore, denied.

Dunbar, C. J., and Hoyt, J., concur.

Scott, J., concurs in the result.

(concurring). For the reasons stated by me in Faulconer v. Warner, 2 Wash. 525 (27 Pac. Rep. 274), I am of the opinion that, prior to the passage of the act of January 21, 1893, it was the duty of a judge whose office had expired to settle statements of facts in cases tried before him. But as I feel bound by the majority opinion in that case, I concur in the disposition of this application on the ground set forth in the foregoing opinion of Judge Stiles.