
    KIRK, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant.
    
      (No. 3,383.)
    
    (Submitted May 5, 1914.
    Decided May 15, 1914.)
    [141 Pac. 149.]
    
      Bills of Exception — Presentation for Settlement — Unlawful Extension of Time.
    
    Where, after the expiration of ninety days, the time for presentation of a bill of exceptions for settlement was extended by the trial judge without the consent of the adverse party (Bev. Codes, see. 7190), the bill was too late and a new trial was properly denied.
    [As to effect upon bill of exceptions of neglect of judge to sign it within the time required by law, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913A, 914.]
    
      Appeal from District Court, Dill County; Franh N. Utter, J udge.
    
    Action by James Kirk against W. T. Smith. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals from it and an order denying him a new trial.
    Affirmed.
    
      Messrs. Nelson & Moore and Mr. B. E. O’Keefe, submitted a brief in behalf of Appellant; Mr. B. E. O’Keefe argued the cause orally.
    . Messrs. W. B. Sands, for Respondent, submitted the brief and argued the cause orally.
   MR. JUSTICE SANNER

delivered the opinion of the court.

Action for malicious prosecution. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The judgment itself is not assailed nor in any wise questioned, save as affected by the order denying the motion for new trial. That order is a general one, and must be sustained, if ground therefor appears upon the face of the record, Such ground does appear in the fact that the defendant’s bill of exceptions was not presented for settlement within ninety days of the verdict. The time for such presentation was extended by the trial judge, but without the consent of the plaintiff or his attorney. The case, both as to the facts and the law, is squarely within the decision of this court in Canning v. Fried, 48 Mont. 560, 139 Pac. 448; and, as the plaintiff insists in this court that the order of the district court was correct, because, among other reasons, there was no bill of exceptions, we see no escape from that conclusion.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Holloway concur.  