
    Blitz v. Brown.
    A writ of error dismissed where the transcript contained only a blank form of a certificate• of ¡puthentication, without the seal of the court below or , the signature of its clerk. Leave was, however, granted to'the plaintlif in error to withdraw the record, but not for the purpose of having it perfected and returned here and placed on .the docket, as. if it had beep, regularly filed.
    In this case — a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the. District of Columbia — no authenticated transcript of the record had been filed. That which purported to be a transcript contained only a blank form of a certificate of authentication, without the seal o,f the eoúrt below or the signature of its clerk.
    Two motions were now accordingly made; the first by Mr. Carlisle-, for the defendant in error, to dismiss, the second, by Mr. Bradley, in behalf of the plaintiff in erroT, for leave to withdraw the paper from the fijes, in order that the blank certificate might be duly signed and sealed, and that when thus perfected, the record might be returned and have its place on the docket, as if regularly filed, according to law and the- practice of the court.
   The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the. court.

The filing of such a paper, as has been filed in this case, is not tLe filing of the transcript at the next term after the issuing of the writ of error, without which we can have no jurisdiction of the case. The motion to dismiss must be allowed.

• So much of the motion made in behalf of the plaintiff in error as asks' leave to withdiaw the record is .granted; but the residue of' the motion mustJbe denied. The case can be brought here only by a new writ of error.  