
    DEFICIENT BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
    [Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.]
    Fritz Wolf v. The Cleveland City Railway Company.
    Decided, November 23, 1903.
    
      Direction of Verdict — Bill of Exceptions.
    
    A hill of exceptions that does not contain all of the evidence offered upon the trial will not he considered for the purpose of reviewing the action of the trial judge in directing a verdict for defendant at the close of plaintiff’s evidence.
    Winch, J.; Hale, J., and Marvin, J., concur.
    Error to the court of common pleas.
    
      Hermann Preusser, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for defendant in error.
   On the trial of this case in the court below, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the court directed a verdict for the defendant.

Motion for new trial was made and overruled, and a certain bill of exceptions was prepared purporting to contain in narrative form the substance of the testimony of the witnesses. The trial judge refused to certify that the bill contained all the evidence produced at the trial, and it is now urged by defendant in error, which was defendant below, that because we do not have before us all the evidence produced at the trial of the case, we should not consider the bill of exceptions for the purpose of reviewing the action of the trial judge in directing a verdict.

This court has several times ruled upon the identical proposition here submitted and has uniformly held that it can not consider the bill of exceptions for the purpose of passing upon the action of the court of common pleas in withdrawing a ease from the consideration of the jury and directing a verdict for the defendant, where the bill of exceptions does not contain all the evidence offered upon the trial. Such was the ruling of this court in the case of Charles Wadsworth v. The Cleveland Electric Ry. Co., and we see no reason for departing from it.

There being no errors complained of except the direction of a verdict by the court, the judgment is affirmed.  