the record, nor was any particular “misconstruction” of law spoken of during the oral argument in this court. We hold that plaintiff's default, resulting from his non-action, was not excused in the showing made in the district court, and upon which the time was extended. Ignorantia legis non excusat. The, discretion to extend time is not absolute in the district court; and when such discretion is not, in our judgment, a sound judicial discretion, we shall not hesitate to review, and, when necessary, reverse, the same. Welch v. County Court, 29 W. Va. 63,18. E. Rep. 337. The policy of the law demands that the utmost diligence should be exercised in taking the prescribed action necessary to a review of alleged errors made in the trial court. Looking towards prompt action, the legislature has specially limited the time within which the necessary steps. preliminary to a review must betaken. The statutory time limited for giving the notice of intention and for having bills of exception and statements settled is ordinarily ample for the purpose. It rarely happens that further time is necessary, but to meet the exigency of exceptional cases the statute permits the trial court, “upon good cause shown,” to extend the time. Without the required showing, the power to extend time does not exist. It follows from the views already expressed that the motion to eliminate the bill of exceptions must be granted, and, as no errors appear upon the face of the record when thus purged, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed. All concur.
Edwards & McCulloch Lumber Company, a Corporation, U. C. Tubbs, partners doing business as Edwards & McCulloch Lumber Company, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. L. P. Baker, Defendant and Appellant.
Sale—Action for Price—Evidence—Pleading—Bill of Exceptions—Review on Appeal.
1. Where, upon trial, the plaintiff proved that it had delivered to defendant an invoice of lumber, to recover the balance of the purchase price of which the action was brought, held proper for defendant to prove that he never consciously accepted the paper as containing the contract between the parties, and that he never examined it or
