
    Yost, Appellant, v. Clark.
    
      Appeals — Assignments of erroi — Signature of judge — Quashing appeal. An appeal will be quashed where it appears that the signature of the trial judge was pasted on the record of the notes of evidence and charge, instead of the record itself being signed.
    Argued March 9, 1904.
    Appeal, No. 4, Feb. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Tioga Co., April T., 1900, No. 174, on verdict for defendant in case of H. Y. Yost v. Andrew Clark.
    Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Motion to quash appeal.
    The motion was based upon an affidavit of the defendant, which averred, inter alia, that no exception to the charge of the court was granted or asked for at the trial; that the alleged copy of the notes of evidence and charge of the court which is on file with the records in said case was never certified to by the president judge, and that what purports to be his signature pasted to a certificate in said case was never attached to said notes of evidence and charge by the said judge or with his knowledge or permission.
    At the hearing by permission of the Superior Court, the attorneys for the appellant were permitted to file affidavits to the effect that the record when lifted from the prothonotary’s office was in the identical condition as it appeared before the Superior Court, and that they had nothing to do with the pasting of the signature thereon.
    
      C. H. Cornelius, with him Harvey F. Heinly, for appellant.
    
      S. F. Channell, with him H. A. Ashton, F. H. Watrous and H F. March, for appellee.
    March 9, 1904:
   Per Curiam,

Appeal quashed.  