
    
      “George, the Count Joannes,” vs. Francis H. Underwood.
    Exceptions which, were not saved, in a trial in the superior court, in the manner provided by the thirty-fourth rule of that court, cannot be proved in this court, on petition.
    Tort, brought in the name of “ George, the Count Joannes,” seeking to recover damages of the defendant for a libel, in publishing of the plaintiff these words: “ There flourishes a soidiscmt count with his decorations given by the grand duke of Pumpernickel, or brought from some similar august potentate.”
    At the trial in the superior court, before Allen, C. J., the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff presented to the presiding judge a bill of exceptions, and also a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, the law, and the rulings and instructions of the judge ; both of which were disallowed. The plaintiff then presented to this court a petition for leave to prove his exceptions, setting forth that he saved the same “ before the verdict, and at the very moment of their occurrence, by more or less strong oral opposition to certain adverse rulings of the presiding judge, and by respectful requests to said judge to instruct the jury, but refused, and by objections, strongly urged, to the judge’s non-admission of certain evidence for the plaintiff in rebuttal, &,c., all in reference to the subject matter of the hereinafter claimed exceptions and motion for a new trial, wherein your petitioner feels aggrieved in that behalf, and now seeks that said exceptions may be heard, as also involving said motion for a new trial, and that both, resulting in but one issue, may be determined by this honorable court.”
    The plaintiff, pro se.
    
    
      C. Allen, for the defendant.
   Bigelow, C. J.

The petitioner is not entitled to prove the truth of the exceptions set forth in his petition. It is admitted by him that he did not allege and save them at the time when the rulings to which he objected were made, in compliance with the thirty-fourth rule of the superior court This rule is a wise and salutary one, which the court was fully authorized to pass, under Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 4. It serves to prevent mistakes and misapprehensions concerning the rulings on points of law raised during a trial, and also affords the adverse party an opportunity to withdraw evidence of doubtful competency and in other ways to avoid nice questions, which might imperil a verdict in his favor. By having distinct notice that his adversary intends to allege and save an exception, a party can often waive a ruling in his favor, which is not essential to his case, and thus escape moot questions of law, which prolong litigation, but do not promote the administration of justice.

The exceptions taken by the plaintiff in the present case were rightly disallowed. Petition dismissed. 
      
      
         This rule is as follows: “ No exception shall be allowed by the presiding judge, unless the same be alleged and saved at the time when the opinion, ruling, direction or judgment excepted to is given. And all exceptions to any charge to the jury shall, unless previously saved, be alleged in writing before the iury are sent out; and, if not so alleged, the same shall not be allowed ”
     