
    JOHN F. CONRAD, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. EWALD BROCKER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR.
    Submitted March 22, 1904
    Decided September 30, 1904.
    It is the settled practice of this court not to consider alleged errors if the printed book furnished the court shows no bill of exceptions signed by the trial judge. Davis v. Littel, 35 Vroom 595, followed.
    On error to the Supreme Court.
    Eor the plaintiffs in error, James C. Connolly.
    
    For the defendant in error, Patrick II. GiThooly.
    
   Per Curiam.

The assignments of error are all directed at errors supposed to have been committed in the trial, and which can only be presented for review by bills of exceptions.

The printed book furnished the court shows no bill of ex-tions signed by the trial judge.

Under the settled practice of this court, the alleged errors cannot be considered. Davis v. Littel, 35 Vroom 595.

No error being shown, the judgment must be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Dixon, Garrison, Fort, Pitney, Swayze, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Green, Gray. 11.

For reversal — Nono.  