Argument for Appellant. (February 28, 1901.) GRAY v. PIERSON. [64 Pac. 233.] BILL OF EXCEPTIONS-CONTENTS.-It is not reversible error if the bill of exceptions contains questions and answers. SETTLEMENT OF BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.-If the trial court found the bill of exceptions sufficient, and acted upon it, it is not for this court to say there was error, SAME DISCRETION OF COURT.-It was within the discretion of the trial court to say the bill of exceptions was sufficient to control its action in granting or refusing a new trial. NEW TRIAL-WHEN SHOULD BE GRANTED.-An order granting a new trial will be affirmed upon appeal, when the record shows errors warranting a new trial, whether such order sets forth the grounds or not. ACTION ON PROMISSORY NOTE-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-PAYMENT BY CHECK.-Payment of a promissory note to remove the bar of the statute of limitations must be evidenced by a writing, a voluntary payment by the payee, and for the purpose of applying the payment on the note. (Syllabus by the court.) APPEAL from District Court, Bear Lake County. T. L. Glenn and John A. Bagley, for Appellant. Newly discovered evidence: The affidavits must state facts showing due diligence and why the evidence was not discovered. (People v. Ah Fan, 53 Cal. 741; State v. Davis, 6 Idaho, 159, 53 Pac. 678; Russel v. Dennison, 46 Cal. 337; People v. Miller, 33 Cal. 99; Arnald v. Skaggs, 35 Cal. 386; Stoakes v. Monroe, 36 Cal. 383.) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict: In the motion the defendant does not attempt to specify the grounds of insufficiency. (McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180, 95 Am. Dec. 170; Kelly v. Leachman, 3 Idaho, 629, 33 Pac. 44.) The statute of limitations is a personal privilege which goes to the remedy and not to the right. The defendant may waive it. (McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180, 95 Am. Dec. 170; Kelly v. Leachman, 3 Idaho, 629, 33 Pac. 44; Kroft v. Greathouse, 1 Idaho, 254; Frantz v. Artesian Well Co., 5 Opinion of the Court-Stockslager, J. Idaho, 71, 46 Pac. 1026; Campbell v. Holt, 115 U. S. 620, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 209; Miner v. Lorman, 56 Mich. 212, 22 N. W. 265.) Part payment operates as a voluntary waiver of the protection afforded by the statute. (13 Am. & Ency. of Law, 1st ed. pp. 704, 750; Barclay's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 69; Haven v. Hathway, 20 Me. 345; Wyatt v. Hodson, 1 Moore & S. 442, 447.) The payment only need be evidenced by a writing; the identity of the debt upon which it is to be applied, time of payment, whether upon principal or interest, may all be proved by parol testimony. (Kelly v. Leachman, 3 Idaho, 629, 33 Pac. 44; Kelly v. Leachman, 3 Idaho, 672, 34 Pac. 813; Kincaid v. Archibald, 73 N. Y. 189; Draper v. Stow, 20 N. Y. 333, 75 Am. Dec. 408; Hartley v. Wharton, 11 Ad. & E. 934; Manchester v. Braender, 107 N. Y. 346, 1 Am. St. Rep. 829, 14 N. E. 405; Wood's Limitation of Actions, 247, sec. 115.) Alfred Budge, for Respondent (Joe Huston, of Counsel). No authorities cited not cited by appellants. STOCKSLAGER, J.-This case is here for review on appeal from the district court of Bear Lake county. The record shows that on the second day of February, 1893, the defendants executed and delivered their promissory note to plaintiff, as cashier of the Bank of Montpelier, for the sum of $200, due in three months after its date. The note shows the following indorsements: "Sept. 1, paid $20.00." "Paid on int. $12.00 by Strong, check dated Sept. 21, '97, int. Dec. 14, '97." On the twentysecond day of August, 1899, plaintiff commenced his action in the district court of Bear Lake county against the defendants to recover on this note, and after the usual allegations for recovery in actions of this character, he further alleges that on the twentyfirst day of September, 1897, the defendant, E. Strong, made, signed and delivered to the plaintiff his certain check, of which the following is a true and perfect copy, to wit: "Montpelier, Idaho, Sept. 21, 1897. No. 0. Bank of Montpelier: Pay to E. Strong, or bearer, $12 (twelve dollars). Pierson note. Hay baled. E. Strong,"-and ordered and directed that said check Opinion of the Court-Stockslager, J. be applied as part payment on said note, which was done by plaintiff in accordance with said direction and instruction; that the defendant E. Strong, by the making of said check and delivering the same to plaintiff, renewed and extended the said note and took the same out of the statute of limitations. Then follows a prayer for judgment. To this complaint the defendant, E. Strong, demurred, alleging that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant, and that, as appears by said complaint, the said cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations and by section 4052, chapter 3, title 2, of the Revised Statutes of the state of Idaho. This demurrer was overruled by the court, and on the sixteenth day of January, 1900, the defendant answered, admitting the execution of the note, but alleging that he signed the same as surety and as an accommodation to James H. Pierson, and that he received no part of the consideration of the giving of said note; denying that said note, or any portion thereof is now due and owing; denying that this defendant on the 21st of September, 1897, or at all, made payment of twelve dollars, or any other sum, upon said note; denying that he ever made any payment on said note, and alleging that said note is barred by the statute of limitations, and is barred by section 4052, chapter 3, title 2, of the Revised Statutes of Idaho; denying that on the twenty-first day of September, 1897, or at any other time, or at all, defendants made, signed, and delivered to the plaintiff the check set out in plaintiff's complaint, and ordered and directed that said check be applied as part payment on said note, which was done by plaintiff in accordance with said directions and instructions, or any directions or instructions; denying that the defendant, E. Strong, by the making of said check, or any check, and delivering the same to the plaintiff renewed and extended the said note and took the same out of the statute of limitations; alleging that on the twenty-first day of September, 1897, he was indebted to James H. Pierson in the sum of twelve dollars for baling hay, and that said Pierson requested said defendant to leave the same at the Bank of Montpelier, Montpelier, Idaho, for him, that defendant drew a check to his own order for the sum of twelve dollars and left the same Opinion of the Court-Stockslager, J. at said bank, that in so doing he was acting as the agent of the said James H. Pierson, and that said check was the property of the said James H. Pierson, and given in payment of the debt due Pierson for baling hay. Upon the issues thus framed this cause was tried by the court with a jury, and on the twentyfourth day of January, 1900, the verdict of the jury was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. On the 25th of January, 1900, a judgment for $446.22, and fifteen dollars and twenty cents costs, was filed with the clerk, and on the fifth day of February counsel for defendant Strong was notified in writing of said judgment. Thereafter a motion was duly made and entered of record asking the court to vacate and set aside the judgment and grant a new trial, and on the 29th of December, 1900, the court made and filed the following order: "The motion of E. Strong, defendant, to set aside the verdict of the jury and the judgment rendered against him by the court, heretofore entered herein, and to grant a new trial in said cause, came on regularly to be heard before the judge of said court in chambers on the twenty-fourth day of December, 1900. Upon the bill of exceptions and affidavits filed herein, the motion having been submitted upon written arguments and briefs, the judge, being fully advised in the premises, finds that the said verdict and judgment are not sustained by the evidence, and are contrary to the law and the evidence, and that errors of law occurred at the trial of said cause. Therefore, it is ordered by the judge of said court that the verdict of the jury, and the judgment of the court heretofore rendered and entered in said cause, be, and the same is hereby, set aside, and a new trial granted herein. Dated Dec. 27, 1900. Joseph C. Rich, District Judge. Filed Dec. 29, 1900." It is from this order. the appeal is taken. The first assignment of error "is the settlement of defendant's bill of exceptions in the form it is in." The second: "Aside from the merits of the case, the court erred in granting a new trial upon the record as it stands, and requiring the plaintiff to bring this record here, in the shape it is in, over the objection of the plaintiff, and contrary to the rules of this court: (a) The bill of exceptions is not according to the rules Opinion of the Court-Stockslager, J. of the supreme court, and is unintelligible, and does not show what errors the defendant E. Strong assigns or relies upon as error; (b) There is no error in the said defendant's assignments of error, and it is impossible to ascertain from said assignments of error what points the defendant relies upon; (c) There is no specification of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict that can be considered or understood.” These assignments will be considered together, as they are so closely interwoven that the settlement of one in effect settles the other. Counsel for plaintiff brings a record to this court for review, and complains of the record as presented to us, and asks us to say that the trial court erred in not sustaining his objection to the settlement of defendant's proposed bill of exceptions in the trial court, and upon which the order was made granting defendant Strong a new trial. We have carefully inspected the bill of exceptions, and, while it is true that many questions and answers incorporated therein might have been left out, yet, taken as a whole, it is a substantial compliance with the statute. The bill of exceptions plainly shows the evidence offered by plaintiff, objected to by defendant Strong, admitted by the court, and excepted to at the time by counsel for Strong. State v. O'Donald, 4 Idaho, 343, 39 Pac. 556, to which our attention is called in support of appellant's contention, has no application to the record before us. In passing upon the record in that case this court said: "No bill of exceptions appears in the record. In fact, there is no record such as is contemplated by the statute. Unless the record shows a substantial compliance with the statutes and rules of this court, it will not be considered. What purports to be the record is merely a copy of the information, a copy of three affidavits by the defendant and one by his wife in support of a motion for a continuance, and the instructions of the court, to which no exceptions were taken, with the verdict and judgment thereon." In the case at bar, instead of counsel for appellant complaining of there not being record enough, he says there is too much; and, as heretofore suggested, we agree with his contention that there is more than necessary, but we think the bill of exceptions plainly and fairly shows the errors relied upon, and |