
    Smith v. Ray.
    The only error complained of being the granting of a nonsuit, and there being in the bill of exceptions no brief of evidence, but instead thereof a full stenographic report of the trial, containing questions to the witnesses and their answers to same, colloquies between court and counsel, rulings made by the judge, objections and exceptions thereto, and much other entirely irrelevant matter, all in total disregard of the requirements of the Supreme Court practice act of 1889, the case has not been brought to this court as the law requires, and the writ of error must be dismissed. The statement of the presiding judge in these terms, “ I think the evidence may be better understood, as I conceived it to be, and that the Supreme Court can better understand the error complained of, by having before them the evidence in full, as reported by the stenographer and incorporated in the foregoing bill of exceptions,” is without effect, inasmuch as statutory requirements can neither be modified nor dispensed with on account of any opinion a member of the judiciary may entertain.
    December 6, 1893.
    M. G. Bayne, by Harris & Harris, for plaintiff in error. Dessau & Hodges, L. D. Moore, Hardeman & Son and B. D. Smith, contra.
    
   Writ of error dismissed.  