The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1888-03-31
rha Mavor ana common couneil Of westnlin:

Ster VS.. Grove A. Snlpley.
The Mayor and Common Council of West
minister notified large number of people to
lay pavements in front of their property, and
among those who failed or refused TO comply
with the notice was the defendant i'll this case.
The city authorities then laid his pavement at
their own expense, and this suit was instituted
BIZ the city FOR the purpose of recovering the
cost of the pavement from the defendant.
Tie case was tried at last May term of Court,
and was decided, solely on questions of law,
in favor of the defendant. An appeal was
taken, and following is the opinion of the
Court of Appeals, which was delivered on
March Is, inst:
The Mayor and Common Council of Westminster
VS.. Grove A. Shipley.
In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, January Term
Chief Judge Alvey delivered the opinion of the
Court:
Unless we determine to reverse the salutary rule
of practice stated and acted upon in the case OF
Wheeler vs. Briscoe A Md, sos, and in subsequent
cases. this Court is not at liberty TO review the ru
ings of the Court below set forth IN Inc Dill OF eN
captions found in the record before us That eN-
cepton was prepared and signed too late and under
circumstances which deprive the appellant of the
BIiscoe this Court said that practice TO sign DIS
of exceptions alter the term must be understood 70
be matter of consent between the parties, unless
the Judge has made an express order in the term
allowing fixed time for preparing IT, ana IN thas
1t was held that, as the term mad elapsed anu
another term interviewed and neither the consent OF
the adverse counsel nor order OF Court nad peeh
obtained extending the time the application to tne
Court to sign bill of exception came too late ana
one signed under such circumstances could not be
noticed appeal. In this case 1t appears tnat tne
verdict rendered on the 9th OF June 1879, nv
Judgment was entered the same day, and on the mo
of July following appeal was prayed ana enleIeu
to this Court The next ensuing term OF me Circut
Court commenced the Sth day OF August, anu
the bill of exception appears to have been signed
on the 18th of September following. The signing Of
the exception was without the consent ana against
the protest of the appellee and there was 10 express
order of Court obtained extending the time for set
Ting and signing the exception.
Ii appears from the affdavits filed. that the coun-
sci for the appellant prepared bill of exception
and left 1t with of the Judges on the go OF July
1881 and that the Judge handed it to one OF the
counsel of the appellee 10 be examined. Inc eA-
ception however, as prepared was not satisfactory
to appellecs counsel. and Afterwards accoruinS 70
the adavits Of appellees counsel sney ag nee Iii II
OF exceptions might be settled and signed. notwith-
standing the lapse of the term. If done within zen
days of that date but the exception not being signed
within that time they refused to agree further IN
regard to it; and we do not understand that these
facts are denied and on The 3st of August the ap-
pellee himself filed with the Judge protest against
the signing of any exception in the case lnese
facts bring the case fully within the decision OF
Wheeler VS.. Brseoe, and the rule there laid down
must govern in this case. 1t is of great Importance
that the RUE upon this subject be definite and hxeu
aud that il be applied with strictness ior II u oe
will likely involve counsel, and sometimes the
Court in conflicts of recollection as to the circum
of the delay well as to the facts proper e
he INCORPORATED in the exception. Hence bills OF
| exception should always be settled and signed a.
soon after the trial as reasonably may be done Aho
il must be understood that any undue delay on the
part of the appellant in having his bills OF exeep
| lions prepared and signed may cause him TO lose
the benefit of the exceptions reserved; ~,
Under the circumstances disclosed the bill OF eS
ceptions was filed too late and there being no ques
| ton properly presented for review, the Judgment
! the Court below must be aihrmed.
/ Judgment affirmed.