Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-12-23
SUPREME COURT DECISION,
Continued from Second Page

any matter properly involved in this pro-
ceeding.
With respect to the alleged exceptions
taken to the ruling of the Court sus-
tanning said demurrer and granting laid
motion to strike out said portions of the
answer, it appears that the Court granted
said motion on the 22d day of December,
1898, and that no ruling was made on SAID
demurrer. 1t appears that no exception
wa. taken to the order granting said mo-
ton until the 18th day of August, 1899,
over three months after the trial OF the
case and over eight months after said
order and ruling were made. On that
day petitioner filed his bill of exceptions
to the said order and to an order made
everruling his demurrer to the complaint
and therein it is stated: That defen-
dant. William Hyams, hereby excerpts 10
the making and entry of each OF SAID
orders.'
Section 1874, General Statutes, provides;
During the progress OF a cause a party
may take his bill of exceptions to the ad-
mission or exclusion of testimony, or to
the rulings of the Judge on points of law
= y :" The alleged ~eXcept.nu was
properly disallOwsd, it not having been
taken in proper time.
In reference to the alleged offer of
counsel concerning the Statutes Of New
York, it appears that III the said state
ment ON motion for new trial, the said
offer was enlarged from the offer shown
to have been made at the trial by said
transcript made by the reporter, and
that said statement contained alleged
facts with respect to the exceptions OF
the petitioner to the giving, the refusal to
give and to the modification Of certain
. instructions, different fir, m what are coll
tanned in said transcript. Vet, the pc
,~litiOner refers to his said statement on
motion for new trial, asks that II be con
>ldered l otrt of his petition, and he in
troducpd m evidence herein, and in his
said stat. .nt, after stating that Mrs.
D., Warren r.Lreement Of the parties and
. by order 90. the Court was appointed ard
authorized and duly sworn to take the
testimony in the case and report the pro
c~oeding>, and that She did 50 report the
testimony and proceedings and tran.
q scribe the same, the petitioner says
"TEat such testimony was given in cVi
deuce and rejected, and that Objection,
- were made. and rulings made and hat
and exceptions taken as are therein SIS
forlh.' said report and transcript Of tn
lg testimony, proceedings, objections, rul
ir ings and exceptions are as tollowN:'
Then Immediately following is inserted
in said statement a copy of said tran
IL script:
We have examined said transcrip t an,
said statement several times CAREFUL.
and if the Court refused to allow any eN
va ception which is shown Ivy said tran
script to have been taken by petitions
AS therein set forth" we have been ur
able to find it.
r. Petitioner now claims that said trar
script does not set forth correctly his ol
d ~iections and exceptions taken at the tris
Of i'm regard ta the said instructions. tn
said reporter by her affidavit aver
\ THAT after the Instructions asked All
given to the jury in said action were req
to the jury by the Hon. c. +. Mack ,Juds
4" of said District Court, atliaut took dow
or correctly in shorthand and afterwarC
typewrote the proceedings in the ca
-. and exceptions taken by the ATTORNEY
for the respective parties in said actiO
in exception to the instructions and tn
u the following is a correct copy Of h
a notes in shorthand taken at the time al
typewriter Ivy atiant, which is here
. annexed and marked Exhibit A. e
Then follows a copy OF a part of 81
y" transcript containing the exceptions Ia
Il" en- as to the instructions.
on She further t~astifies: "Afiant furth
ct. says that no particular point of any Z
ception was taken by defendants att
neys, or either of them, or was stat
during said trial or afterwards, and II
ny the tailur to state the ground or partic
and lar point of exceptions was the subj
ell. of comment by w. +. f. Deal, one
not plaintiffs attorneys, TO attiant ina
t. diately after said jury retired to cousit
their Verdict
The above affidavit Of the reporter
ter corroborated by the atidavits of seve
up other atlantis.
tie That the Court struck out its rrasC
given for refusing &c rtain instructions
, Of settling said statement, we regard as
,vn Ing wholly immaterial, and a matter
have nothing to do with in this prOce
ing. The said statement shows that s
instructions were refused and that p
toner excepted to such refusal.
AS to the allegations Of the petit
concerning defendants instruction
ii, it appears tIIt the Cour resto
IH99 the word "plaintiH," a. it was in the
structioa when presented TO the Co