Carey v. Bourque-Lanigan Post No. 5 Et Al‪.‬

This matter comes up on plaintiff's exceptions to the direction of a verdict for defendants. The issue here presented is, ""Were these exceptions regularly and properly allowed below, or should they be dismissed?"" At a regular April Term of the Superior Court below, the presiding justice directed a verdict for the defendants. Seasonably thereafter during the term, a docket entry was made of ""Exceptions filed and allowed."" On the same day the presiding justice fixed the time for filing an extended bill of exceptions, and an appropriate docket entry was recorded, ""Extended Bill of Exceptions to be filed on or before return day of June Term, 1953."" A transcript of the evidence was seasonably filed on May 29, 1953. On the first Tuesday of June, 1953, the return day for the June Term, no extended bill had been filed and no docket entry had been made disclosing any further extension of the time for such made disclosing any further extension of the time for such filing. The presiding justice at the June Term was not the justice who presided at the April Term. On the fifth day of the June Term, the justice then presiding ordered the time further extended for filing bill and the following docket entry was made, ""By order of the Court extended Bill of Exceptions to be filed on or before July 1, 1953."" Ten days later the extended bill now before us was filed and allowed without qualification by the justice who originally presided at the April Term. The extended bill of exceptions was signed by counsel for the defendants as ""Seen and agreed to as to form only.""