Bastable v. Bastable

²¹⁴ Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from the rulings of the Court of Common Pleas in the trial of issues sent from the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City, involving the validity of a paper writing purporting to he the last will and testament of Alvin 1ST. Bastable, deceased. The .appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the hills of exception were not presented to or signed by the judge who presided at the trial below within the time prescribed by the statute.

Section 6 A of article 5 of the Code, as enacted by chapter 356 of the Acts of 1922, provides that, “all appeals from any decisions, or determinations or rulings of a court of law in cases of issues sent from the 'Orphans’ Court to a court of law to he tried, to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, shall he taken within two months from the date the verdict is rendered, unless a motion for a new trial is duly filed, in which ease the appeal shall he taken within two months from the date upon which such motion for a new trial is denied, overruled or dismissed; and the transcript of the record shall he transmitted to the Court of Appeals within three months from the time of the appeal taken.” Chapter 625 of the Acts of 1916, amending, the Public Local Laws of Baltimore City, provides: “Bills of exceptions may be signed in any cause pending in any of said courts, at any time within the period that the parties, or any of them, shall have the right to file an appeal from the rendition of the verdict by the jury or the findings of the court upon the issue of fact in said cause; and upon filing the order for such an appeal, the time for signing said hills of exceptions •shall thereby he further extended until ten days before the period within which it is required that the record shall he transmitted to the Court of Appeals,” etc. ²¹⁵ Tlie record in this ease shows that the verdict of the jury was rendered on the 11th of December, 1922; that the order for appeal to this Court was filed on January 9th, 1928, and that the hills of exception were not presented to or signed by the trial judge until the 4th of April, 1923. It thus appears that the hills of exception were not, as required by the Act of 1916, presented to the trial judge or signed by him within ten days before the expiration of the time within which the record was required to be transmitted to this Court. Counsel for the appellants filed an answer to the motion to dismiss the appeal, in which he states that he and counsel for the appellees, on the 19th or 20th of March, 1923, appeared before Judge Duffy, who presided at the trial below, with the bills of exception which he had previously prepared and submitted to counsel for the appellees, for the purpose of having J udge Duffy determine whether certain exhibits should be included, and that Judge Duffy determined that the exhibits referred to should be inserted in the bills of exception ; that it was understood at said meeting* before J udge Duffy that he, counsel for the appellants, expected to leave the city on account of his health and would not return until the first of the following month, and that it was also understood at said meeting' that counsel for the appellees would send counsel for the appellants copies=of the papers they desired to have inserted, and that the bills of exception were to be signed by Judge Duffy after counsel for the appellants returned to the city, and that within three days after his return, the exceptions, with the desired corrections., were presented to and signed by Judge Duffy. 1 n reply to the answer filed by counsel for the appellants, counsel for the appellees state that they were anxious to