The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-02-20
Ham C0ntanded Service Was Less Than
Six Full Days Before Petition Day.
THE LAW KNOWS NO PART OF A DAY.
Under the Statute The Ssrics Of District Court
Writ Any Tine on The Sixth DAY Before
Return Day is Valid.

Deputy Sheriff Franklin p. Ham loses
his appeal from the decision of
the Sixth District court i'm case
i'm which he was defendant and
Herbert ID. Mathewson plaintiff Mr.
Ham pleaded IA abatement that the
writ, served May 6. 1898. and return
able May IL. 1898. had ben served less
than six days before the return day.
IL was decided in the district court that
the plea must be overruled and the
appellate court i'm a decision handed
down today sustains the decision of the
lower court.
Judge Stiness, who writes the opinion
says that General laws, chap. 253. sec
tion /, provides that "a writ issuing
from a district court shall be served
not less than six days before the re-
turn thereof. The defendant claims
that this means six full days or clear
days. In other words TO insure not less
than six days, the writ must be served
on the seventh day before its entry. We
are aware that there is a cOnfic,"0f au-
thority on this point and that quite "a
number of cases may be found which
lay such stress upon the words, not
less or at least as to imply from them
a day more than could be required In
simply the same number of days We
think. however. that the better reason
is with the other view.
1t is an elementary rule that the law
does not regard part of a day. Hence.
a thing done at any time in day is
taken the same as though IL had been
done in the first minute of the day.
Of A a pf
computing time, is taken as whole
day.
Another general rule and one pre-
scribed for the construction of our stat
utes, general statutes chap. 20, sec. t2,
is that in computing time from a day,
such day shall not be included. Hence,
If statute required writ to be served
six days before the entry day. IL would
be enough TO serve ii at any time on
the sixth day before. and IL would be-
counted as six whole days IL seems
reasonable. with such a well known and
general rule that i'm using the words
mot less than six days they were used
with reference to the rule and not for
the purpose of requiring another day.
which could have been done more apt
ly. Moreover If a part of a day is 10 be
taken as a whole day. the words not
less do not add anything for six fun
days are implied in law without them.
The words therefore. not less than six
days as are counted i'm law: recogniZ-
ing anything done on the sixth day as
completing the period. This was held
to be the rule OF construction In Wright
VS.. Forrestal, G5 Wis. 34l, where IN
city council every resolution for work
on streets was required TO lie over at
least four weeks. Action on the fourth
Monday was decided To be legal. The
court remarked that men would ordi-
narly construe a week as the period
| from Monday of one week TO Monday Of
the next week, and not until Tuesday
| of such week.
"But whatever room there may be
| for difference as to other statutes, as
| TO the one involved i'm this case, we
| think there can be none. For years
| the law has simply required writs OF
| justice courts to be served six days
| before the return day. and they could
be served as many more than six days
| as one chose. In some cases the return
| day had been several months ahead, so
| that additional attachments could be
! made before the entry of the case in
| court. To stop this practice the district
court act. so called, Pub. Laws, May.
| 1856. chap. 500, sec. 46, provided that
| writs should be served not less than six
nor more than twenty days before the
return day. The evident purpose of this
was TO limit the time within which the
property could be tiedu by attachment
! before the entry OF the case. 1t was TO
| be not more than twenty days. and, To-
! make the antithess the service was tu
| be not less than six days before court.
/ as IL had been previously. We cannot
\ think that the words not less were
! added with any purpose of making the
/ time six clear days so as TO require
| the service ON the seventh instead of
! the sixth day, as heretofore Neither
| have we any reason to suppose that the
| added words have been so understood