
    KAMPF, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT COMPANY, Respondent.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    November 3, 1903.
    Practice: APPELLATE: EXCEPTION NOT PILED. Where no error is assigned on the record proper and the abstract of the record fails to show a bill of exceptions was filed, though there is a recital of its filing in the bill itself, nothing is presented for review.
    Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». ' Franklin Ferris, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      John J. Connor for appellant.
    
      Boyle, Priest & Lehmann, George W. Easley and Edward T. Miller for respondent.
    (1) The record, as shown by plaintiff’s abstract, does not show that any bill of exceptions was filed in the court below and by order of the court entered of record. The filing of a bill of exceptions can not be proven by its own recitals. Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 411; State v. Baty, 166 Mo. 561; Allen v. Funk, 85 Mo. App. 460; Burdick v. Life Ass ’n, 86 Mo. App. 94; Shoe Co. v. Williams, 91 Mo. App. 511; Lucas v. Huff, 92 Mo. App. 369; Hayden v. Alkire Grocer Co., 88 Mo. App. 241; Roush v. Cunningham, 163 Mo. 173; Wilson v. Railroad, 167 Mo. 323; Bates v. Railroad, 88 Mo. App. 550; Hughes v. Henderson, 95 Mo. App. 312. (2) No error appearing in the record proper, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
   GOODE, J.

Appeal from order of circuit court granting new trial on ground of newly-discovered evidence.

No- error is assigned on the record proper, and the abstract of record fails to show a bill of exceptions was filed. There is a recital of its filing in the bill itself, but that is not enough, the Supreme Court has said. Western Storage & Warehouse Co. v. Glasner, 150 Mo. 426; Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 411.

The judgment is affirmed.

Bland, P. J., and Bey-burn, J., concur.  