
    BAGLIN v. CUSENIER CO.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    November 2, 1907.)
    Appeal — Record-Papers Pertaining to Ruling Not Itoviewable.
    The ruling, of a federal court refusing to permit a party to a suit in equity to introduce further evidence after the time for taking testimony had expired, being discretionary, and not reviewable, the motion papers on which snch ruling was made are not properly a part of the record of the case for final hearing.
    On Motion to Strike Papers from Record for Final I Tearing.
    Ralph Lane Scott, for the motion.
    Howson & Iiowson, opposed.
   WARD, Circuit Judge.

After the time for taking testimony in this case had expired, Hough, J., refused to permit the defendant to offer in evidence the Law Times report of the British decision. This was discretionary with him, and, as no appeal would lie to his action (Ingle v. Jones, 9 Wall. 486, 19 L. Ed. 621), the motion papers on which he acted are not within the rule laid down in Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 23 L. Ed. 521.

The motion to require the defendant to strike the motion papers from its printed record is therefore granted.  