
    (80 South. 798)
    SHARPE v. HUGHES et al.
    (6 Div. 715.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Dec. 19, 1918.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1919.)
    1. Appeal and Error &wkey;>511(l) — Matters Reviewable — OBills oe Exceptions — Authentication.
    Where the appeal record contains bill of exceptions, but does not show that it was authenticated by signature of judge presiding at trial as required by Code 1907, § 3018, questions depending on the bill cannot be reviewed.
    2. Appeal and Error i&wkey;>511(2) — Matters Reviewable — Bills oe .Exception — Time poe Filing.
    Where appeal record contains bill of exception, but does not show that it was presented within time prescribed by Code 1907, § 3019, questions depending on the bill cannot be reviewed.
    3. Appeal and Error @=>637 — Defects in Record — Judicial Notice.
    Supreme Court will take notice ex mero that a bill of exceptions was not authenticated by judge as required by Code 1907, § 3018, and was not presented within time prescribed by Code 1907, § 3019.
    Appeal from Probate Court, Jefferson County; J. P. Stiles, Judge.
    Action between Joseph Hughes and others and George M. Sharpe. From a judgment in favor of the former, the latter appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, ante, p. 509, 80 South. 797.
    Thompson, Greene & Thompson and N. L, Steele, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
    R. E. Smith and Clark Williams, both of Birmingham, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

All questions sought to be raised by this appeal are such as can he considered only when shown by a bill of exceptions or in connection with a bill of exceptions showing the evidence or the tendencies of the evidence adduced at the trial. The record in this cause contains what purports to be a bill of exceptions, but it is not authenticated by the signature of the judge presiding at the trial, as the statute requires (Code, § 3018), nor does it appear to have been presented within the time prescribed by law (Code, § 3019). In these circumstances, of which the court takes notice ex mero, the so-called bill of exceptions cannot be considered for any purpose. Box v. Southern Railway Co., 184 Ala. 598, 64 South. 69; Edinburg-American L. M. Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 South. 823; Rainey v. Ridgeway, 151 Ala. 532, 43 South. 843. It results that the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and McOLELLAN, SAYRE, and GARDNER, JJ., concur.  