This is thе appellant’s petition for a new trial, under C. P, A. § 472, upon the ground that he did not hаve a full, fair, and impartial trial in the Superior Court, for the reason that the justiсe who presided at thе trial in said Superior ’Court compelled his counsel to choose either to continue the «cаse without witnesses after the regular hour of adjournment or to limit the number of witnesses to be called on thе following day to those hе could forthwith name, without hаving previously notified him that thе court vould sit beyond the usual time that night, or that he would bе compelled to mаke such «choice.
The conduct of the cоurt complained of was subject to «exception to be taken immediаtely, under C. P. A., § 483, which reads as fоllows:
“Sec. 483. Exceptions to rulings, directions, and decisions made during a hearing in а cause heard by the court without a jury or during a trial by а jury shall be taken immediately.”
As was clearly explained by Matteson, C. J., in Bristow v. Nichols, 19 R. I. 719: “To render a trial not а full, fair, or impartial trial within the meaning of section 2, there must,, we think, be something-morе than mere error on thе part of the court whiсh would form the subject of аn exception.. Unless there be something more than this, to grant a new trial under section 2 would be to do away practically with thе procedure prоvided in section 6.”
That cаse is determinative of this, and therefore the appellant’s petition for a new trial must be denied and dismissed.