
    W. R. PARRY, Respondent, v. THE GORDON COFFEE AND SPICE COMPANY, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    February 16, 1903.
    Appellate Practice: ABSTRACT: MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL: RECORD ENTRY. The filing of the motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment must be shown by a record entry, and a recital in the bill of exceptions is insufficient.
    Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hb». J. E. Slower, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      Ellis, Cook <& Ellis for appellant.
    Filed brief on merits.
    
      George F. Bailing al and C. S. Leonard for respondent.
    (1) The abstract of the record fails to show a judgment, original entry or order, or matters necessary to a full understanding of questions presented to the court. Eule 15, Kansas City Court of Appeals: E. S. 1899, secs. 808, 813; Herman v. Daily, 74 Mo. App. 505. (2)- The recitals in the bill of exceptions do not supply the record proper. Walser v. Wear, 128 Mo. 652; Storage and Warehouse Co. v. Glasner, 150 Mo. 427; Lawson v. Mills, 150 Mo. 428.
   BROADDUS, J.

Plaintiff having called attention to the defective abstract herein, the defendant filed a motion for leave to supply such defect accompanied with an amended abstract. The original failed to show that there had been any judgment in the case, or that any bill of exceptions, motion for new trial, or motion in arrest of judgment, had been filed. The amended or supplemental abstract shows that a judgment bad been rendered and that a bill of exceptions bad been filed, bnt it does not show any record of tbe filing of a motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment. Tbe bill of exceptions recites sncb filing, but that is not sufficient, as snob showing mnst be made from a record entry in tbe case. Hill v. Combs (not yet reported; and Turney v. Ewins, 97 Mo. App. 620; Crossland v. Admire, 149 Mo. 650; Lawson v. Mills, 150 Mo. 428; Western Storage Co. v. Glasner, 150 Mo. 426.

Finding no' error in tbe record proper tbe canse is affirmed.

All concur.  