10 S.D. 623 | S.D. | 1898
Plaintiff petitions this court to prove a bill of exceptions; alleging the refusal'of the trial judge to allow the same in accordance with the facts. It appears that plaintiff prepared and served the draft of a bill, and defendant prepared a-proposed amended bill, containing all of the matters set forth in plaintiff’s draft, except certain matters deemed by hiña to be false, redundant, and useless, and also containing certain testimony omitted by plaintiff, deemed by defendant to be necessary, to explain the rulings of the court. The judge adopted and signed the proposed amended bill. In settling exceptions, it is the duty of the judge to strike out all redundant and useless matter, so the exceptions may be presented as briefly as possible; and the bill, when settled, must conform to the truth. Comp. Laws, §§ 5082, 5083. It is the dnty of the judge to exclude all redundant and useless matter, and correct the bill until it is conformable to the truth, regardless of what may or may not be proposed by the parties. The proper practice is for the judge to indicate such changes, if any, that he deems should be made in the proposed bill, and then an engrossed bill should be prepared, without interlineations or erasures, complete in itself, containing such matters as are necessary to'explain the rulings of the court and errors relied upon by the party seeking its settlement; and such engrossed bill should be signed by the judge. We take this occasion to condemn the practice, occasionally followed, of attaching proposed amendments to a proposed bill, and indicating by an order or certificate such as are allowed or rejected. There was no substantial departure in this case from the method herein sug