Opinion
17343.
FEBRUARY 14, 1951.
Alimony, etc. Before Judge Andrews. Fulton Superior Court. July 18, 1950.
Harris Bullock and James G. Lamar, for plaintiff.
Samuel L. Eplan, for defendant.
The delay in tendering the corrected bill of exceptions in this case was unreasonable. The certificate of the trial judge does not show that the delay was occasioned by providential cause or imperative necessity, and the bill of exceptions must be dismissed. Allison v. Jowers, 94 Ga. 335 ( 21 S.E. 570); Sutton v. Valdosta Guano Co., 115 Ga. 794 ( 42 S.E. 94); Walker v. Wood, 119 Ga. 624 ( 46 S.E. 869); Atkins v. Winter, 121 Ga. 75 ( 48 S.E. 717); Meador v. Callicott, 129 Ga. 631 ( 60 S.E. 863); Whitley v. Kelly, 136 Ga. 835 ( 72 S.E. 346); Mulling v. Exchange Bank of Waycross, 137 Ga. 431 ( 73 S.E. 654); Kent v. Geiger, 138 Ga. 248 ( 75 S.E. 104); Jensen v. Jacobs Pharmacy Co., 143 Ga. 724 ( 85 S.E. 873); Hayes v. Chapman, 147 Ga. 626 (2) ( 95 S.E. 216); Mathis v. Prigmore, 148 Ga. 497 ( 96 S.E. 1038); Turner v. Turner, 191 Ga. 123 ( 12 S.E.2d 633).
Writ of error dismissed. All the Justices concur.
No. 17343. FEBRUARY 14, 1951.
The exception in this case is to a judgment rendered July 18, 1950. The bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge on August 2, 1950. No previous notice had been given the defendant in error, or his counsel, of the intention of the plaintiff in error to present the bill of exceptions. The trial judge refused to certify the bill of exceptions because it did not include all of the material evidence adduced upon the hearing; and he advised counsel for the plaintiff in error that he "would not be able to take any action toward reconciling said bill to speak the truth before September, 1950." The bill of exceptions was again presented to the judge on October 17, 1950, with the corrections suggested by him. The judge instructed counsel for the plaintiff in error to arrange for counsel representing the defendant in error to be present at an early date, so that all disagreements could be reconciled. On October 21, 1950, counsel for both parties were present, and objections to the correctness of the bill were urged by counsel for the defendant in error. Counsel for both parties were then instructed by the judge to prepare their versions of the evidence in the case, and return it to him at an early date for reconciliation. A hearing for that purpose was had on October 26, 1950, and the judge ruled as to the correctness of the two versions. The bill of exceptions which was filed in this court was certified on October 28, 1950, and contained five pages.
Counsel for the defendant in error made a formal motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions filed by the plaintiff in error, upon the ground that there was an unreasonable delay in presenting the corrected bill of exceptions to the trial judge.