
    William H. Corey, petitioner.
    Middlesex.
    October 19, 1925. —
    October 20, 1925.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Braley, Crosby, Carroll, & Sanderson, JJ.
    
      Practice, Civil, Exceptions: petition to establish. Rules of Court.
    
    A petition to establish exceptions, which was accompanied by a jurat disclosing that it was acknowledged as the free act and deed of the petitioner but was not verified by affidavit; notice of the filing of which did not appear to have been given to the adverse party under Rule 6 of the Rules for the Regulation of Practice before the Full Court; and which contained no allegation that the bill of exceptions sought to be established had been disallowed by the trial court, was dismissed.
    Petition, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court on June 1, 1925, for the establishment of exceptions alleged to have been saved by the petitioner at the trial before Keating, J., in the Superior Court of an action of William H. Corey vs. George H. Tuttle.
    
      W. H. Corey, pro se.
    
    
      8. D. Elmore, for the respondent.
   By the Court.

This is a petition to establish the truth of exceptions. The petition is not verified by affidavit. The jurat annexed shows that it was acknowledged as the free act and deed of the petitioner. That is not verification by affidavit. It is manifest from the facts disclosed by the petitioner at the bar that there was no compliance with the requirement of Rule 6 of the Rules for the Regulation of Practice before the Full Court, that the petitioner “shall, before filing his petition, give notice thereof to the adverse party, by delivering a copy thereof to him or his attorney of record.” There is no allegation in the petition that the bill of exceptions was disallowed by the judge of the Superior Court. Without further discussion, it is plain that the petition cannot be maintained. Fuller, petitioner, 219 Mass. 209. John Henry Co. petitioner, 222 Mass. 182. Thorndike, petitioner, 244 Mass. 429.

Petition dismissed.  