
    *Hairston v. Cole.
    May, 1823.
    Bill of Exceptions — When Imperfect — Case at Bar. — A bill of exceptions, stating1 that a manuscript, “purporting- to he a copy of an act of tlie General Assembly, entitled an act, &c.,”ls too imperfect to enable the court to pronounce any opinion thereon, it not being stated that the said copy was ■authenticated, and how authenticated, and the manuscript not being set out in the bill of exceptions. . ,
    . , Same- Case Stated Imperfectly — Effect.  — Where a bill of exceptions states a case imperfectly, the cause will be remanded for a new trial.
    This was an ejectment brought in the superior court of Henry county, by Cole against Hairston. At the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence, a manuscript, purporting to he the copy of mi act of the 'General Assembly of Virginia, the title whereof is in these words, “an act to- suspend in part, the operation of the act concerning escheats and forfeitures from British subjects, and for other purposes.” The defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence; but, the court overruled-his objection, and permitted this paper to ■go to the jury. The defendant excepted. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the court rendered judgment in his favor. From this judgment, the defendant appealed.
    Wickham, for the appellant.
    
    The Attorney General, for the appellee.
    
      
      Bill of Exceptions — When Imperfect. — See mono graphic note on “Bills of Exception” appended to Stoneman v. Com., 25 Gratt. 887.
      The principal case is cited on the subject in McDowell v. Crawford, 11 Gratt. 396. 397, and disguished in Archer v. Archer, 8 Gratt. 546.
    
    
      
      -Same — Case Stated Imperfectly — Effect.—When a bill of exceptions states the facts so imperfectly that the court cannot discover how the case ought to be decided, the judgment should be reversed, and the canse remanded for a new trial. To sustain this proposition, the principal case is cited in McDowell v. Crawford, 11 Gratt. 388, 398. But see contra, foot-note to Thompson v. Cumming, 2 Leigh 321; foot-note to Bowyer v. Chestnut. 4 Leigh 1; footnote to Harman v. Lynchburg, 33 Gratt. 37; monographic note on “Bills of Exception” appended to Sfoneman v. Com., 25 Gratt. 887, -where it is shown that the later decisions sustain the rule that a bill of exceptions must clearly and distinctly point out the error complained of. otherwise the exception is unavailing: in other words, where the bill oí exceptions is so uncertain that the appellate court cannot discover whether or not there has been error, the j udgment of the lower court ought to be affirmed. Otherwise, a premium would be put upon carelessness, and the exceptor would be encouraged to ■draw his exceptions in as confused a way as possible.
    
    
      
      Wickham referred to the following cases to shew that the court will send a cause back, when a bill of exceptions states a case too imperfectly to render a judgment. 1 Call, 215. 223, Barrett v. Tazewell; 2Munf. 253. 256, Beattie v. Tables Adm'r. — Note in Original Edition.
    
   JUDGE BROOKE,

May 20. — delivered the opinion of the court: The statement in the bill of exceptions, that a manuscript purporting to be a copy of an act of the General Assembly *of Virginia, entitled an act, &c. is too imperfect to enable the court to pronounce any opinion thereon, it not being stated that the said copy was authenticated, and how authenticated, nor is the said manuscript set out in the bill of exceptions. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.  