
    John Borley, Resp’t, v. The Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co., App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed December 12, 1890.)
    
    1. Trial—Exceptions must be taken to authorize review, of rulings.
    Where a party intends to review rulings made upon a trial it is not enough that he objects to evidence, he must also take proper exceptions; otherwise the court will not examine the matters objected to.
    2. Same—Adjournments.
    Adjournments are in the discretion of the trial court, and except in a case of abuse the general term will not interfere.
    
      Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on the report of a referee.
    The action was to recover for services of plaintiff, performed under a contract and at defendant’s request, as a canvasser in selling sewing machines and making collections.
    The referee found that defendant was a foreign corporation, and had an office and place of business in the city of ¡Kingston, which was in charge of Edwin E. Tallman, and that he was duly authorized to and did make with plaintiff for defendant the written contract set forth in his report He also found that the written contract was modified by defendant in respect to allowance of compensation. That under the contract and agreement between the parties the plaintiff sold machines to several different persons on which sales the sum of $69.75 for unpaid commissions was due to plaintiff. Also, that at the request of defendant the plaintiff had during his employment collected monies from various parties, the value of which services were $7.72. For these services, with interest from September 12,1888, the date of the commencement of the action, the referee found for the plaintiff, and directed a judgment therefor in his favor, with costs.
    * On the trial said Edwin E. Tallman, defendant’s agent at Kingston, was sworn for defendant. On an adjourned day for hearing, defendant secured an adjournment for the purpose of recalling said Tall man as a witness, he then being absent. B ut on the ad j ourned day for the absence of the same witness, the referee refused to grant the second adjournment under the circumstances, on the ground that defendant did not show any time when he could reasonably secure the attendance of said Tallman, who was then out of the state, and the cause had been set down peremptorily for the day named.
    The defendant excepted to the refusal of the referee to grant this second adjournment, which is the only exception taken on the trial.
    
      Alva S. Newcomb, for app’lt; G. B. Adams, for resp’t.
   Learned, P. J.

There are no exceptions in' this case except to the refusal to adjourn. Therefore none of the rulings made on defendant’s objection can be heard. This is settled in Briggs v. Waldron, 83 N. Y., 582, where the court would not hear an argument on rulings, although there was a stipulation that it was understood upon the trial that an exception followed every objection.

The reasons given by the court of appeals in that case are very sound ; the rule there stated should seldom, if ever, be disregarded.

On the refusal to adjourn we need only say that adjournments are in the discretion of the trial court. We should not interfere unless in case of abuse, and nothing of that kind appears.

The defendant claims that certain findings of the referee are unsupported by evidence, especially as to the Dorsey sale and as to commissions. But the evidence to support these findings is in the case; only the defendant claims that it was improperly admitted.

As above stated, the defendant did not except to the admission of the evidence, and therefore we have nothing to review. In the language of the case above cited, which should be fully understood, “ the provisions of law which require a party desiring to review rulings upon a trial to take exceptions in proper form are established for the convenience of courts as well as for the protection of parties; and the latter cannot by stipulation have their cases heard on appeal without regard to those provisions.” Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Landon and Mayham, JJ., concur.  