
    Orin Sherman, Appellee, v. Simeon P. Ash, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 5,957.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeax and eerob, § 1016
      
      —necessity of certificate of what instructions were offered, given or refused. Errors in instructions cannot be considered, where there is no certificate of the court that any instructions were offered, given or refused, though several instructions are copied in the record.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stark county; the Hon. John ' M. Nibhaus, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed July 31, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action Tby Orin Sherman against Simeon P. Ash for slander. The declaration alleged words spoken by defendant amounting to a charge of larceny. Defendant filed a plea of not guilty and there was a jury trial resulting in a judgment against him for five hundred dollars from which he appeals.
    The errors relied on for reversal are: That there is no evidence of the slanderous words charged in the declaration; that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; that the court erred in permitting evidence of slanderous words spoken by defendant other than those charged in the declaration; and that the jury did not follow the instructions of the court.
    Allen P. Miller and John Dailey, for appellant.
    James H. Rennick, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and ebbob, § 1003*—necessity of certificate that bill of exceptions contains all the evidence. In the absence of a certificate of the court that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence, a reviewing court will not examine the record to determine whether the evidence there shown sustains the verdict.

3. Libel and slander, § 175*—when admission of proof of words not alleged harmless. In an action for slander, admitting proof of words spoken by defendant other than those laid in the declaration, held not error if there was evidence otherwise of the speaking of the words charged.  