The enforcement of the rules of the Superior Court rests within the discretion of that court. There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendants' motion to extend the time for depositing the costs of transferring the case to the Supreme Court, where after being notified that compliance with the rule relating to such costs (Superior Court Rule 73) was necessary the defendants permitted the time to expire under a mistake of judgment as to the applicability of the rule. The Trial Court is not required to adopt a reserved case as proposed by counsel when it omits certain facts and contains matters of argument and contention.
BLANDIN, J.
It is axiomatic that the enforcement of its rules rests within the discretion of the Trial Court. Lehigh c. Company v. Company, 89 N.H. 274, 275, and cases cited. We perceive no abuse of discretion here, as among other factors it appears the defendants, although notified in ample season that they should comply with Superior Court Rule 73, chose rather to rely on their own judgment that the rule was not applicable. Having done so, they cannot now complain. Broderick v. Smith, 92 N.H. 33, 36. Neither can they prevail upon their exception to the Court's failure to adopt their proposed reserved case. It appears they omitted certain facts from it, while inserting other matters of argument and contention, all of which furnished sufficient reason for the Court's refusal. Woodsville Fire District v. Cray, 88 N.H. 264, 267. It follows the order is
Judgment on the decree.
GOODNOW, J., did not sit: the others concurred.