Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-05-29
THE MOTION DENIED
Judge Bradley Declines to Allow Col.
Breckinridge's Bill of Exceptions
The Rules of the Court Had Not Been
Adhered To and He Could Do
Nothing Else.

In the Pollard Breckenridge breach of
promise suit the congressional defendant
yesterday received a setback which, in the
opinion of not few members of the bar.
Will prevent him from further prosecuting
his appeal from the Judgment recovered
against him by the plaintiff.
1t viii be remembered that upon the rem
dtion of the verdict motion for a new
trial was entered by the defendant This
motion was denied by Judge Bradley on the
18th of last month, when the defendant
noted an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
1t being explained to the court that some
weeks would necessarily be required i'll
which to prepare the bill of exceptions, the
question arose as to whether the term of
the court in which the suit was tried, the
January term, could be extended for that
length of time. Counsel for Miss Pollard
assured the court and counsel for the de-
PENDANT that they would offer no objection
to an extension of the term. and. with their
consent, an order was entered, extending
the term thirty days for the purpose of pre-
pairing and signing the bill of exceptions.
This extension of thirty days was the ut
most time allowed by the rules of the SUI
preme Court of the District for an extension
of term of the court That extension of
the term expired yesterday, and at 8 o'clock
Messrs. Shelby and Butterworth, of coun-
sci for Col. breckenridge, appeared before
Judge Bradley and moved that the court
sign the bill of exception. Messrs. Carlisle
and Wilson represented Miss Pollard.
Mr.. SkeIby's Explanation.
Mr.. Shelby explained to the court that the
preparation of the bill OF exceptions had
been mainly intrusted to Col. Breckenridge.
but that he had been so delayed by political
duties and by the illness OF Mrs. Breckin-
ridge that 1t had not been completed until
Friday last. That afternoon, at 445, the
bill of exceptions had been rendered to Mr..
Carlisle. Mr.. Carlisle informed the clerk
who took 1T to him that while ne could not.
OF course, prevent him from leaving IL at
lis office, he would have to decline to ac-
cept 1t. Mr.. Carlisle's reason for refusing
to then accept the bill OF exceptions was
that counsel for the defendant had disre-
garded q very important rule OF the court
in not rendering the bill to the plaintiffs
counsel at least three days previous to the
expiration of the thirty days granted for its
preparation.
AIR. Shelby stated that the clerk left the
bill at Mr.. Carlisle's office that afternoon,
but that he was informed the next Gay
that counsel for the plaintiff had declined
to receive it and that they would stand upon
their rights under the rules of the court.
ThereupOn Mr.. Shelby sent for the bill and
explained that counsel for the defendant
now asked the court TO allow and sign il.
He briefly argued that the extension of the
term was done by stipulation of counsel on
both sides, and claimed that he had not
known, nor had the defendant or his
other counsel known. that the rules requir-
ed that the other side was entitled to three
days examination of the bill before it could
be presented for the courts signature.
Counsel for Miss Pollard did not deem II
necessary to reply except to say that coun-
sci for the defendant must have or should
have, known of the requirements of the
rules.
The Motion Denied.
Judge Bradley disposed of the motion in
a very few words. explaining that III Ger
the rules there was nothing for him to do
but TO deny the motion. which he did The
rules, said Judge Bradley. were very neces-
sary and very plain. They had not been
obeyed, and the defendant would, of course.
have to bear the consequences of his fail
ure to obey them
Mr.. Shelby suggested that the thirty DAYS
really meant thirty days exclusive of Sun
days and holidays, which would yet give
the plaintif's counsel more than the three
days required by the rules in which TO ex-
anime the bill of exceptions
Judge Bradley, however, did not take that
view or the matter and, while he said that
that particular question had never before
SO far as he knew. been brought TO the at
tention of the court, he would hold that the
rules meant thirty days. If 1t had been the
intention to exclude Sundays and HOLIDAYS
the rules would undoubtedly have so stated
Ihat closed the hearing, and counsel for
the defendant left the court with the bulky
bill of exceptions. which is understood 10
cover some four or five hundred TYNE
written pages.