Wadsworth, J.

1. The appeal and the revision petition have been heard together because they both arise out of the same litigation, but the questions raised in them are really quite different.

2. In the second appeal the only question is whether the lower Court was wrong in law in refusing to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. Quite clearly the lower Court was not wrong in its decision at all unless an application for copies filed on 10th August, 1932, can be regarded as an application not only for a copy of the judgment but also for a copy of the decree. The application in terms only asks for "a copy of the order" and it was not until 3rd September, 1932, that, a memorandum was filed asking that the decree might be drafted and a copy of it might be granted. Now, if time had been running against the appellant until 3rd September, 1932, his appeal was time-barred. I am unable to say that the lower appellate Court committed any legal error in holding that the earlier application dated 10th August, 1932, was not an application for a copy of the decree and that there were no grounds for excising the delay. The result therefore is that the second appeal is dismissed with costs.