
    CASE 27 — PETITION ORDINARY
    JANUARY 13.
    Corley’s ex’r vs. Evans and wife.
    APPEAL PROM SHELR'Í CIRCUIT COURT.
    1. A document styled a bill of exceptions, professing to state the facts, which may have been actually exhibited in the circuit court, and ' which does not appear to have been either signed or filed in court, cannot be judicially noticed or considered by the Court of Appeals.
    2. Time being allowed by the circuit court to complete a bill of exceptions in vacation, the presumption is, that it was signed extra-judicially, out of court, and is, therefore, according to the Code, unauthorized and void.
    3. In the absence of testimony to the contrary, the Court of Appeals must presume, that the verdict was authorized by the proof, and the judgment of the circuit court, consequently, right.
    Bullock & Davis and J. L. Caldwell, For Appellant,
    CITED—
    
      Civil Code, secs. 359, 414.
    1 Greenleaf’s Ev., sec. 82.
    3 Marshall, 80 ; Gillasjne vs. Osborne.
    
    
      3 Bibb, 26; Hart's heirs vs. Coram.
    
    6 Johnson's R., 59 ; 3 Cowan, 611, 615.
    
      Munf., 437; Mason's dev. vs. Peters' adm'r.
    
    1 Johnson, 66 ; 3 Johnson, 536 ; 3 Cowan, 623.
    4 Cowan, 483, 492 ; Barn., 436.
    Z. Wheat and W. Montfort, For Appellees,
    CITED—
    
      Civil Code, sec. 364.
    17 B. Mon., 603 ; Freeman vs. Brenham.
    
    2 Met., 297; Allard vs. Smith.
    
    2 Met., 378; Tweedy vs. Commonwealth.
    
   JUDGE R0BEB.TS0N

delivered the opinion op the court:

Whether right or wrong on the facts which may have been actually exhibited in the circuit court, we cannot judicially know. Those facts do not appear in the record in a cognizable form. The document professing to state them, and styled a bill of exceptions, does not appear to have been either signed or filed in court; but, as time was allowed for completing it in vacation, the presumption is, that it was prepared and signed extra-judicially out of court, and is, therefore, according to the Code of Practice, unauthorized and void.

We are, therefore, not permitted to notice it judicially ; and, consequently, as we must, in the absence of testimony to the contrary, presume that the verdict was authorized by the proof and the judgment consequently right, we cannot reverse.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.  