
    
       M. M. Thompson et al. v. J. F. Duff.
    Bill of exceptions.—As the paper purporting to be the bill of exceptions is neither signed nor sealed by the judge who tried the cause, it is no part of the record and can not be considered by the court.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson county; the Hon. O. A. Habiceb, Judge, presiding.
    Opinion filed September 24, 1885.
    Messrs. Allen, Moobe & Schwabtz for appellants.
    Messrs. Babb & Lemma, for appellee.
    
      
       Chas. Gager v. James H. Edwards, affirmed for the same reason as above ease.
    
   Per Curiam.

The only questions presented by argument of counsel for our consideration are, that the verdict is against the evidence, and the- court erred in giving instructions for appellee and refusing proper instructions asked by appellant.

These questions can not be considered by us, mdess ]-resented by a bill of exceptions containing the evidence and instructions.

There is a paper in the record purporting to be a bill of exceptions, but is neither signed nor sealed by the judge who tried the cause, as the statute requires, in order to make it a part of the record. In such case, such a paper, though copied into the record by the clerk below, constitutes no part of the record and can not be considered by this court. James v. Sprague, 2 Scam. 5; Miller v. Jenkins, 44 Ill. 448; Reeves v. Reeves, 54 Ill. 332.

We can not therefore inquire whether the court erred as suggested in argument.

Judgment affirmed.  