cause shown in furtherance of justice.” Where the cause shown is spread out in full upon the record in the court below, and an objection to the action of the court below in settling the bill or statement is properly made, this court, upon a motion to purge its records, will review the cause shown; and if, in the opinion of this court, good cause was not shown for settling the bill or statement after time, such motion will be granted, and the bill or statement will be striken out.
2. The bill in this case was not settled, nor sought to be settled, for a period of nearly four years after the verdict for defendant was returned. The only excuse offered to the district court for plaigtiff’s laches and default in the premises, and as a cause for extending the time after the lapse of so long an interval after the statutory periods had expired, is found in language embodied in the plaintiff's affidavit showing cause, as follows: “Such error was occasioned by deponent’s misconstruction of the law in relation to bills of exception upon appeal to the supreme court.” This is not “good cause shown,” within the meaning of § 5093. Ignorantia legis non excusat.
(Opinion filed Dec. 5, 1891.)
APPEAL from district court, Barnes county; Hon. Roderick Rose, Judge.
C. A. Van Wormer, for Appellant. W. F. Ball and John S. Watson, for respondent.
Action by Ole J. Moe against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company for damages arising from the death of his son, caused by defendant's negligence. Verdict and judgement for defend- ant under direction. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Wallin, J. This action was tried on June 30, 1887, and on that day and on defendant's motion therefor, the district court, Hon. W. H. Francis, J., presiding, instructed the jury to re- turn a verdict for defendant, which verdict was returned. A stay of ninety days was entered in plaintiff's favor as follows: “Within which to move for a new trial, and perfect and have settled and file exceptions, and perfect appeal to supreme court.” No notice of intention to meve for a new trial was ever served or filed in the action, but on July 15, 1887, plaintiff's counsel filed a written motion for a new trial, stating in substance, as grounds of such motion, that the court erred in directing a ver-
