The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-02-24

question, under consideration In the pres
cnt case. was decided by this court in the
Railway company. Utah. 5O7. in which
case IT was held In effect that assign
ment OF errors. which had not been flleo
in the court below, as required by the
statute. could not be filed In the Supreme
court 1t is contended that the word as
siGnment." as used In the Bankhead case,
was used in the sense OF specification OF
errors Continuing. the opinion says
The statement on appeal then tthe
Bankhead case was decided before the
admission of Utah TO Statehood. as point
ed out by the majority was similar to
our present bill of exceptions. and since
that decision there has been no amend
ment TO that statute changing the place
where assignments or specification of or.
rors are to be presented, will be
noticed by a comparison of the sections
quoted. The amendments simply require
more particularly and detail respecting
the making of the specifications and set
tlement of the bill.
In Entire Harmony
that such draft OF the bill of exceptions
must contain all the exceptions taken
upon which the party relies excludes
by Implication all objections and excep-
trial, upon which tho party appealing
does not rely for reversal, and this Is
in perfect harmony with the provisions
in the amended section, 1884. which pro-
vides that the collection must be stated
with so much OF the evidence or other
matter as is necessary to explain It, and
which likewise excludes all evidence and
other matter not necessary 10 explain
| the objection.
When Construed Together.
| the statute arc construed together their
| plain meaning IS that the bill OF eXcep-
| tions. when settled. shall contain all the
! objections and exceptions upon which the
| "a relies. others.
such evidence or other matter as is ne,
| cessary to explain such exception. These
| provisions, thus construed, are also IN
entire accord with tho further provision
in section 1886. which makes it the duty
| of the Judge. in settling the bill, TO strike
| out Of II all redundant and useless mat
sented as briefly as possible.
What Statutes Require.
| Chief Justice Bartch then takes the
| ground that 1t Is manifest that sub.
! etantIal compliance with the statutory
provisions upon this subject absolutely
error 10 be presented and settled In the
bill CT exceptions. and that this legIsla,
| 1.-Two requirement comedies with sound
reason and good practice.
| Regarding rule 26. the opinion says. ''lt
| is true my brethren recently adopted rule
| &C. which relates 20 technical assign
| ment OF errors 10 be filed In this court
but. In my judgment, that rule is n use-
| legs thing. without statutory requirement
| and serves but to entail unnecessary ex-
psnsc upon lit!gants, 10 establish an un-
| wlse practice. and. doubtless. in many
| Instances. 10 prolong litigation ey open
, ing the door to an appeal for the cOrrcc-
sion % an error which might be correct
, ed by the trial court. upon its attention
! being called TO H. before the settlement
| OF the bill OF exceptions
Then follows the citation OF many au-
| thorltie4 supporting his views. after
which The Chef Justice Gays; For these
reasons / Dissent from that portion OF
the decision OF the majority which re-
} lates TO the question Of practice