
    Michael Freeman, Jr. vs. City of Boston.
    Suffolk.
    November 12, 1901.
    November 13, 1901.
    Present: Holmes, C. J., Knowlton, Lathrop, Hammond, & Loring, JJ.
    Practice, Civil, Exceptions, Double costs.
    After a verdict for the petitioner on a petition to recover damages for the taking of land and buildings by a city under Pub. Sts. c. 49, no exception lies to the denial by the judge, after hearing, of a motion by the petitioner for allowance of the fees of witnesses who had testified as to the value of the property. Such an attempted exception was overruled with double costs.
    Petition to recover damages for the taking of land and buildings of the petitioner under Pub. Sts. c. 49, filed January 1, 1896.
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Fessenden, J., several witnesses appeared for the petitioner and gave evidence appraising the value of the land and buildings. After a verdict for the petitioner, the petitioner moved for allowance of the fees of the appraisers who had testified. This motion after hearing was denied by the judge; and the petitioner alleged exceptions to the denial.
    The exceptions were allowed by the judge with the following statement: “The foregoing exceptions are conformable to the truth. The respondent objects that the bill does not contain any subject-matter of exception. If exception lies to the denial of the motion stated in the bill, then I allow the bill of exceptions. The exceptions, however, appear to me to be, and I find that they are, frivolous and intended for delay.”
    
      3. Dunham,, for the petitioner.
    
      T. M. Babson, for the respondent, was not called upon.
   By the Coubt.

It does not appear that there was any ruling of law- adverse to the petitioner.

Exceptions overruled with double costs.  