Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/448

4C6 • ■ ■ FeDeRAIi EEPOKTER. �Whalen V. Sheridan. {OireuU Court, 8. D. New York. August 19, 1880.) �1. Phactice— BrcLS of Exception— Filing After Tekm. �The power to reduce exceptions taken at trial to form, and have tliem signed and flled, is conflned, under ordinary circumstances, to the term at which the jiidgment was rendered. �MvMer v. Elilen, 91 U. S. 251. �2. Bamb — Samk — Samb. �A stay of prpceedings was granted plaintift for 60 days from August 27, 1879, in order to enable him to prepare a bill of exceptions. Judg- ment was subsequently rendered December 27, 1879, and the term at which it was entered expired April 3, 1880. Held, under these cir- cumstances, that a motion to file a bill of exceptions after the expira- tion of the term, upon the ground of sickness from about February 25th to the latter part of May, 1880, and subsequent poverty owing to such protracted sickness, should be denied. �3. Same— Same — New York Code of Practice. �The rules of the New York Code of Practice have no application to writs of error and bills of exception in the United States courts. — [Ed. �Motion for leave to fila and serve a bill of exceptions nunc pro tune. �Scott Lord and C. C. Egan, for plaintiff. �S. B. Cl'arke, Ass't Dist. Att'y, for defendant. �Choate, D. J. This is a niotion for leave to file and serve a bill of exceptions nune pro tune ûnder the following eircum- stances : The action was for damages alleged to haye been caused by a trespass committed in 1867. At tfte Dotober term, 1878, on the twentieth day of December, 1878, the de- fendant had a verdict, and thëreupon a stay of proeeedings for 60 days was granted to the plaintiff. On the eighteenth of February, 1879, on the plaintiff's motion, a further stay of 60 days, after a motion for a new trial should be decided, ■was granted for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to pre- pare a bill of exceptions. In April, 1879, the motion for a new trial was argued, and on the twenty-eighth of August, 1879, an order was entered denying the motion for a new trial. On the twenty-seventh of December, 1879, judgment was entered for the defendant on the verdict, and for his ����