
    Waldo County Farmers’ Union vs. E. B. Hunt.
    Waldo.
    Opinion March 23, 1918.
    
      Rights of rejarees to have their report resubmitted. Rule as to presiding Justice allowing same and as to exceptions being allowed to such ruling.
    
    Recommitting a report both before and after acceptance, for the purpose of correcting clerical errors and the like in the interest of justice, has been the practice since the establishment of this court, and from the order to recommit for any such purpose exceptions do not lie.
    Action on the case in the nature of assumpsit. By agreement of the parties the case was referred at the April term of court, 1917, Waldo County. The report of the referee was duly filed in court at the September term, 1917, and on the fourth day of the same term counsel for plaintiff filed a motion asking that the report of the referee so filed be resubmitted on account of an error in figuring the amount due plaintiff. On the same day the referee filed a further report showing that the error had been corrected. The second report was accepted by the Justice presiding and the same was allowed by him; to which ruling defendant filed exceptions. •
    Exceptions overruled.
    The case is stated in the opinion.
    
      Morse & Cook, for plaintiff.
    
      Arthur Ritchie, for defendant.
    Sitting: Cornish, C. J., Spear, Hanson, Philbrook, JJ.
   Hanson, J.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and on a claim for embezzlement. By agreement of the parties the case was referred. On the coming in of the report of the referee, the plaintiff filed the following motion: “And now comes the plaintiff in the above entitled cause and moves that the report of the referee be resubmitted to him that he may correct a mathematical error which the said Referee madé in figuring the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff, to wit: that he add to the amount already found by him for the plaintiff the further sum of two hundred and forty-five dollars and seventy-two cents, being the amount actually found due the plaintiff from the said defendant, but in making up his calculation said sum was omitted by mistake in figuring up the same and that his said report may be resubmitted for said purpose and not accepted in its present form.”

The motion was granted, the report resubmitted, the amendment made, and the report as amended was accepted by the presiding Justice. To the acceptance of the report as amended the defendant excepted, and the case is before us on such exception.

Counsel also filed a petition to establish the truth of other exceptions, which on account of irregularity, and non-compliance with Rule of Court XLIII, will not require our consideration.

Recommitting a report both before and after acceptance for the purpose of correcting clerical errors and the like in the interest of justice, has been the practice since the establishment of this court, and from the order to recommit for any such purpose exceptions do nqt he. North Yarmouth v. Cumberland, 6 Maine, 21; Harris v. Seal, 23 Maine, 437; Mayberry v. Morse, 39 Maine, 107; Crooker v. Buck, 41 Maine, 359; Hickey v. Veazie, 59 Maine, 284; Fales v. Hemenway, 64 Maine, 373.

Again, it is not-urged, nor does it appear, that the defendant is aggrieved or injured by the alleged act of the presiding Justice. The facts and inferences all point to the opposite conclusion, and the entry will therefore be,

Exceptions overruled.  