
    Bernard Conway vs. Daniel Callahan.
    Bristol.
    October 25, 1876.
    Devens & Lord, JJ., absent.
    Dnder the Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7, if notice of the filing of a bill of exceptions is not given to the adverse party, within three days after verdict, or within further time allowed by the judge before the expiration of the three days, and that party has not waived such notice, the exceptions will be dismissed.
    Motion to dismiss the defendant’s bill of exceptions to rulings of Brigham, C. J., at a trial in the Superior Court at June term 1876, on the ground that the plaintiff had not been seasonably notified of the filing thereof. It appeared by the docket and files of that court that a verdict for the plaintiff was returned and recorded July 5, 1876. The certificate of the judge on the bill of exceptions was as follows:
    “July 31, 1876. Exceptions allowed, being conformable to the truth. The foregoing exceptions were filed on July 8, 1876. The defendant’s attorney mailed a postal card on July 14,1876, at Fall River, to the plaintiff’s attorney, notifying him of the Ring of these exceptions ; and this notice was received by the plaintiff’s attorney, in due course of maR, on July 15, 1876. Eo reasonable explanation of this delay was found by the court, and the exceptions were allowed against the objection and exception of plaintiff’s attorney.”
    P. West, (J. M. Grould with him,) for the plaintiff.
    
      H. K. Braley, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

The statute requires that a bill of exceptions shall be filed and notified to the adverse party, as well as presented to the court, within three days after verdict, or within further time aEowed by the judge before the expiration of the three days. The plaintiff, not having waived compliance with the statute, is entitled to insist upon it. Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7. Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 362. Tufts v. Newton, 119 Mass. 476. Exceptions dismissed.  