man's 1994 conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

And the court dismissed the defence's appeal of the four-year sentence that John O'Donald Fox received for the stabbing.

"My view is that the sentence was extremely light,'' said Court of Appeal President the Hon. Sir James Astwood.

Fox's attorney, Mr. Archibald Warner, sensed the mood of the three-judge panel. "I will abandon the appeal,'' Mr. Warner said.

"You're very wise,'' said Mr. Justice Harvey da Costa.

In a trial last May, a jury convicted Fox, 25, of Bridle Hill, of wounding office manager Michael O'Brian on November 2, 1993. He was acquitted of attempting to murder and rob the man.

Fox had previous convictions for unlawful wounding and possession of an offensive weapon.

At the trial, Fox claimed he was provoked when O'Brian made a homosexual advance. Court was told O'Brian suffered stab wounds that damaged his intestines and pancreas and narrowly missed his aorta.

Had the aorta been struck, Fox easily could have faced a murder charge, Mr.

Justice da Costa said.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Mr. Warner had not filed a proper appeal of the conviction, and therefore could not use an affidavit filed last week to set out the grounds for the appeal. And the court rejected Mr. Warner's request for a time extension so he could file the appeal properly.

Crown Counsel Mr. Brian Calhoun argued Mr. Warner had not shown the required "good cause'' for an extension of time to appeal.

Mr. Justice da Costa told Mr. Warner his affidavit should have been filed months earlier, immediately after a November hearing before the Appeals Court.

When Mr. Warner asked that the rules be waived, Mr. Justice da Costa asked if he was looking for "some sort of palm tree justice.'' Mr. Warner said he sought a time extension "in the interests of justice.'' "All of this sloppy background, and then you say in the interests of justice,'' Mr. Justice da Costa said. "It's a recipe for chaos.'' Mr. Warner argued that Puisne Judge Mrs. Justice Wade misdirected jurors when she told them they could not consider provocation as a defence to the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

But Mr. Calhoun said that argument was "facetious.'' The law stipulated that provocation was not available as a defence if the force used was likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

When Mr. Warner began to appeal against the sentence, Mr. Justice da Costa reminded him an appeal was only in order if the sentence handed down was "manifestly excessive.'' "You really think sticking a knife in the man...is appropriate?'' the judge asked. "You seem to think that nobody should ever be convicted of any offence.''