
    W. R. Patterson, Appellant, v. John Groetzinger, Constable, and Al. Young.
    
      Appeals — Practice, Superior Gourt — Defective assignment.
    
    Where the record fails to show before verdict rendered, a request that the charge, which is the basis of all the assignments of error, be reduced to writing and filed of record, or that it was filed by the direction of the trial judge, the assignments will be disregarded and the appeal quashed.
    Argued April 12, 1899.
    Appeal, No. 74, April T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1896, No. 512, on verdict for defendants.
    Before Rige, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Smith, W. W. Porter, W. D. Porter and Beeber, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Per curiam.
    Trespass. Before White, P. J.
    It appears from the record that this was an action of trespass in which the plaintiff sought to recover of John Groetzinger, a constable, $1,500 damages on property levied on and sold as the property of William Rushway, which property it was claimed belonged to the said W. R. Patterson, plaintiff.
    The record failed to disclose that before verdict rendered defendant requested that the charge be reduced to writing and filed of record, or that it was filed by direction of the trial judge; nor was the charge or the testimony duly certified by the trial judge attached to the record as sent up to the Superior Court.
    Under the charge of the court the jury brought in a verdict for the defendants. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were (1-5) to portions of the judge’s charge, reciting same.
    
      J. A. Wakefield, with him W. Gi. Negley, for appellant.
    
      Henry E. Lineaweaver, with him Stone Potter, for appellees.
    — Motion to quash the appeal on the ground that the charge, which is the basis of the several assignments of error, is not properly on the record, in this, that the record does not show that counsel for appellant requested before verdict that the charge be reduced to writing from the stenographer’s notes and filed of record, citing Rosenthal v. Ehrlicher, 154 Pa. 401, and Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492.
    May 18, 1899:
   Per Curiam,

The defendant moves to quash the plaintiff’s appeal upon the ground that the charge, which is the basis of all the assignments of error, is not properly on the record. Not only was there no request before verdict rendered that the charge be reduced to writing and filed of record, but the record fails to show that it was filed by the direction of the trial judge. Indeed, neither the charge nor the testimony duly certified by him is attached to the record sent up to us. We are, therefore, compelled to disregard the assignments and affirm the judgment or to sustain the defendant’s motion to quash the appeal. The latter has been held to be correct practice in such a case: Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492.

The appeal is quashed at the costs of the appellant.  