ARK.] FURST & THOMAS V. VARNER. 1127 FURST & THOMAS V. VARNER. • Opinion delivered June 8, 1925. EXCEPTIONS, BILL .0E—NECESSITY OF FILING WITHIN TIMID.TrWhere bill of exceptions was not filed within the time fixed by the court, a bill filed pursuant to a vacation order of the trial judge extending the time was Unavailing. Appeal from White . Circuit Court; E. D. Robertson, Judge ; affirmed. Avery M. Blomit, for appellant. John E. Miller and Cul L. Pearce, for appellees. SMITH, J. The only error assigned for the reversal of the:judgthent in this case is that the court below crred in giving and in refusing to give certain instifactions. The order overruling the motion for a new trial was made on January 31, 1924, at which time the court allowed ninety days for preparing and filing a bill of exceptions. The court adjourned on February 16, 1924, until May 19, 1924, but on April 8 the trial judge made an order in vacation extending the time for filing the bill of excep-tiöns for thirty days. The court was not in session af between February 16 and May 19. A bill of exceptions was filed . with the clerk of the trial court on May 29. - In the case of Routh y. Thorpe, 103 Ark. 46, it was said that " * * * before a pnrported bill:of exceptions can be considered as a part of the record on this appeal, it is neeessary that the transcript brought to this court ninst show that the bill of exceptions was duly filed with the clerk within the time fixed by the court while in session." Other cases 'to the same effect are cited by Here, the court while in session allowed ninety day§ for , filing the bill of exceptions, and it Was not filed within the time limited. The additional time allowed for that purpose was given in vacation and was unavailing.
1128 [168 The errors complained of are of such nature as can be brought to the attention of this court only by a bill of exceptions, and, as the bill of exceptions was not filed within the time fixed by the court while in session, the one filed cannot be considered, and the judgment of- the . court below must therefore be affirmed, land it is ' so ordered.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.