
    Schluckebier and others, Appellants, vs. Babcock and others, Respondents.
    
      September 27
    
      October 20, 1899.
    
    
      Bill of exceptions: Extension of time for settling: Discretion.
    
    Refusal to permit an unsuccessful party to file exceptions to the findings, and to extend the time within which to settle a bill of exceptions, after the time therefor had expired, is held not to have> been an abuse of discretion, where the record failed to disclose any adequate excuse for the delay of over six months after the entry of judgment, or to show that a bill of exceptions would be of any advantage if settled.
    Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Columbia county: R. G. Siebeckeb, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    An issue, on appeal from county court by the present respondents, was tried in the circuit court for Columbia county on the 18th day of May, 1898. Bindings were made and filed, and judgment entered, on June 6th, and notice of entry of judgment was duly served on the attorneys for these appellants on the 26th day of July. An extension of time to settle the hill of exceptions was granted to som© time in December. Ro exceptions to the findings, were filed. On February 1, 1899, appellants served notice of a motion for an order permitting them to file exceptions to. the findings, returnable February 14th, and renewing, and extendingr the time in which they might serve and settle the bill of exceptions, which was accompanied by a proposed bill of exceptions. The order being denied, an appeal was taken therefrom. The affidavits, proposed bill of exceptions, and order are included in the record, but not the pleadings, findings, or judgment. From the bill of exceptions it appears that the appellants did not offer any evidence upon the trial-
    For the appellants there was a brief by Malone <& Ilill’er? and oral argument by J. E. Malone.
    
    For the respondents there was a brief by Sawyer de Sawyer? and oral argument by II. W. Sawyer.
    
   Dodge, J.

The record not only fails to show any adequate excuse for the delay for more than six months from ihe entry of the judgment, but it also fails wholly to show that a bill of exceptions could be of any advantage to the appellants if settled. Upon no subject is the discretion of the trial court broader than upon applications by parties in , default for favors and extensions of time in matters of mere procedure, such as this. ¥e discover no abuse of such discretion here.

By the Oourt.— Order appealed from affirmed.  