Ellegood v. Robinson

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. There is a motion in- dismiss the appeal in this ease. The ground of the motion is that the bills of exception were not submitted or signed within the time limited by the rule of the trial court, and that no order of extension was passed during that period. By the rules of the Circuit Court for Worcester County, where the ease was tried, it is provided that “unless otherwise expressly allowed by the court, the bill of exceptions shall be prepared and submitted to the court within twenty days from the rendition of the verdict.” The record shows that the verdict was rendered on April 5th, 1921, that on May 13th an order of court was filed granting leave to the appellants to file bills of exception by J uly 1st, that they were filed, unsigned by the court, on June 30th, and that, as signed by the court, they were refiled on August lltli.

It has been certified by Judgk Dunn, who presided at the trial, that, upon its conclusion on April 5th, he ordered in open court, on application of the appellants, that leave be allowed them to submit the bills of exception by July 1st, and that, the clerk having omitted to enter the order on the docket, a subsequent order in writing was passed directing him to make a docket entry of the extension as of the date when it was in fact granted. We are further informed by Tuiwb Dunn’s certificate that the bills of exception were delivered to him on June 30th, and would have been signed by him at that time but for his desire to submit them to the attorneys fox the appellees, and that having so delivered them for examination he received them again after several weeks with suggestions of certain changes, which were made, and that, in accordance with the practico of the court, the hills of exceptions ⁵⁸ were then signed, as of the date when they were originally filed, which was within the time previously allowed. The transcript of the record reached this Court within three months after the appeal was entered, and our rule limiting the time of transmission was therefore duly observed. As the bills of exceptions were “prepared and submitted” in conformity with the rule of the trial court, within the time allowed by the order of extension, the right of appeal was not prejudiced by the subsequent delay in the signing of the bills under the circumstances described by the trial judge in his ■certificate.

Snowden v. State, 133 Md. 624 . It is argued, however, that there was no effective extension ■of time to July 1st for the preparation and submission of the bills of exception, because no order in writing was passed by the court