1. Practice—Time for Presenting Bill of Exceptions'—Rules of Court.

Rules of court prescribing the time within which bills of exceptions must be presented or settled are rules of procedure, which may be dispensed with, in the discretion of the trial judge, provided the exceptions themselves are seasonably taken, and the bill of exceptions is presented at the same term at which the judgment is rendered; and the pendency of a motion for a new trial is good ground for the exercise of such discretion in permitting a bill of exceptions to be presented after the time limited by rule. t

2. Negligence—Sufficiency of Evidence.

The administratrix of one J., a locomotive engineer in the employ of the S. Ry. Co., sued that company for damages for the death of J.; alleging that it knowingly permitted defects to exist in the engine operated by J., by which he was thrown from the engine and mortally injured. Tt appeared upon the trial that J., at the time of his death, was running an engine with which he had been long familiar, and which was old and nearly worn out, and, in consequence, a “hard-miming” engine, liable to jar and sway; that, while running at a speed of about 18 miles an hour, one of the injector valves stuck, and J. wont out on the running hoard to close it; that such a difficulty with the valve was liable to occur on either a new or old engine, and that the course taken by J. to remedy it was the usual and proper one; that J. did close the valve, and started to return to the cab, and, while returning, fell from.’ the engine; that no special jar or jolt was noticed by either of three other men on the engine, sufficient to have thrown J. off if he was holding by the hand rail. Held, that the evidence was insufficient to establish negligence in the railway company.

8. Same—Risks oe Employment.

Held further, that the risk attendant upon going out upon the running board to remedy the sticking of the valve which was liable to occur was one of the risks of his employment assumed by J. '