be granted, and that the time should not be extended. The appellants then applied to me, and I came to the conclusion that I ought - not to interfere with the GRtr. decision of the judge of the court below, and I refused the application.
There being nothing to bring this case within the exception, as in the case of O'Sullivan v. Harty, I think we must act on that decision until some other rule is established.
The present appeal comes within the rule heretofore acted on; we must therefore, I think, grant the motions and dismiss the appeal.
FOURNIER, HENRY, TASCHEREAU and
JJ.
concurred.
Solicitors for appellant: Foster, Clarke 4- Bowes.
Solicitors for respondents, the Griffiths : Howland,
Arnoldi 4 Ryerson.
Solicitors for respondents, Geo. Wright and others:
Kerr, MacDonald, Davidson 4- Patterson.
Solicitor for respondents,
Hornbrook and Mc- Cormack: John MacGregor.
JOHN MARTLEY
TRUMAN
APP
CELAH CLARK
March * ROBERT CARSON
JOSEPH
EHOLT
Appeal-When run-S. 25-Entry of
J. J. lienry
Gwynne JJ.
the that judgment.
Harty
MOTION to dismiss appeal on the ground that it was not brought within thirty days after the pronouncing of the judgment.
This was an appeal from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in an action respecting water rights brought by Carson and Eholt against the appellants Martley and Clark. Judgment was pronounced 20th August,1885. On the 28th August the defendants (appellants) gave notice of appeal and security, and obtained from the plaintiffs (respondents) a consent to three months' further time being given to file the case. The three months having expired without the case being ready, the appellants applied in chambers to Ritchie C.J of the Supreme Court of Canada, for further time to appeal. This application was refused on the ground that the appellants had not satisfactorily accounted for the delay. On the 8th January, 1886, the minutes of the judgment were settled. On the 9th January the plaintiffs(respondents)moved before the full court of British Columbia to vary the minutes. The minutes were varied by striking out certain declarations respecting the rights of the plaintiff Carson and the defendant Martley respectively, and also with respect to the costs payable by the plaintiff Eholt. On the 26th of January, 1886, the judgment of the court below was entered. The appellants next day gave fresh notice and went on with the appeal.
Chrysler supported motion.
McCarthy Q.C. contra. By the court: Motion refused with costs.