SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

madc an order extending the time for signing the bill of exceptions and the bill was signed on the same day. The appellate court said
There was no consent of the parties, and the order extending the time of signing was passed after the expiration of 30 days from the rendition of the verdict, if Sundays be included. It is contended, however, that Sundays should be excluded, and that the statute means 30 working or judicial days. But with that contention we can not agree. If there had been error in the rulings of the court below, it might have seemed a hardship that the appellant should have lost his right of appeal by being one day too late; but neither this court nor the court below can disregard the plain language of the statute, and we have had occasion to speak more than once of the importance and necessity of having bills of exceptions signed promptly As neither the bill of exceptions, nor the order extending the time was signed within 3o days from the rendition of the verdict, the motion to dismiss thappeal must prevail.
In this cause before us it may be seen from our statement of the facts relating to the extension of time, etc., that no attempt was made to comply with the provisions ot section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is proper for us to say, therefore, that while it may be a hardship for appellant to thus lose his right of appeal, that hardship can not make it right for this court "to disregard the plain language" of a code provision. The motion to dismiss must therefore prevail.
It is ordered that the bill of exceptions be and same hereby is dismissed without costs.
Affirmed.
EWAR JEANETTE versus ESTATE OF GEORGE
ANDRADE.
No. 133. Submitted June 11, 1914. Decided June 20, 1914.
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.
It is not the province of the Supreme Court to reverse a case on the facts
unless the findings of the trial court were plainly and manifestly against
the weight of the evidence.
Appeal trom the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit; Hon. William H. Jackson, Judge.
The facts appear in the opinion.
V. E. Bruno, for appellant. 1W H. Carrington, for appellee.

312