
    Watson, Respondent, vs. The City of Milwaukee, Appellant.
    
      April 28
    
    
      September 25, 1900.
    
    
      Appeal: Bill of exceptions: Printed case: Questions reviewed.
    
    1. Where there is no bill of exceptions returned with the record, errors assigned, based upon rulings made on the trial, cannot be reviewed, although the printed case contains what purports to be a copy of a regularly settled bill of exceptions.
    
      % Where no bill of exceptions is returned with the record, the only question open is whether the pleadings and verdict sustain the judgment.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: I). II. Johnson, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This is an action to recover for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff from a fall upon the sidewalk on the south side of Mason street, in the city of Milwaukee, on the 5th of February, 1898. The defect which was alleged to exist in the sidewalk was a sharp and excessive incline in the walk towards the west, combined with a pitch to the north, both of which inclines were alleged to be contrary to the established grade of the street and the ordinances of the city. At the time of the accident the walk (which wa-s constructed of artificial stone) was covered with a smooth coating of ice and snow, on which the plaintiff alleges she slipped and fell on account of the unlawful and excessive inclines aforesaid and the accumulation of ice and snow thereon. The answer denied all negligence or improper construction of the sidewalk, and admitted the giving of sufficient notice to the city.
    Upon the trial a special verdict was rendered as follows: <<(1) Was the plaintiff injured substantially as charged in her complaint, on the 5th day of February, 1898, by falling-on the. sidewalk at or near the southwest corner of the crossing of Milwaukee and Mason streets, in the city of Milwau-
      
      Iteef Yes. (2) Was the place where the plaintiff fell insufficient and unsafe for pedestrians exercising ordinary •care, and having occasion to use the same'? Yes. (3) If you answer the last interrogatory in the affirmative, was such insufficiency and want of safety the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury? Yes. (4) Did such insufficiency •consist in part in the inclination from the horizontal of the ■surface of said sidewalk at the place where the plaintiff lost her foothold and fell ? Yes. (5) Did such insufficiency and want of safety consist in part in the accumulation of snow and ice upon said sidewalk at that place ? Yes. (G) If you answer the last interrogatory in the .affirmative, had such accumulation of snow and ice at the time of the plaintiff’s fall and injury been upon said sidewalk at that place long enough to require the proper officers of the city to attend to the clearing away of the same, or making the same safe for passengers in some way ? Yes. (I) If you answer the last interrogatory in the affirmative, ought the officers of the citjr chargeable with the care of its streets and sidewalks, in the exercise of ordinary intelligence, to have anticipated that said accumulation of snow and ice, in the •condition in which it then was, was liable to cause some pedestrian to fall and be injured? Yes. (8) If you find in answer to the fourth interrogatory that the inclination from the horizontal of the surface of said sidewalk at the place where the plaintiff was injured was in part the occasion of •a fall, ought the officers of the defendant corporation, in the exercise of ordinary intelligence and proper' skill, to have anticipated that said inclination was liable to cause the fall and injury to a pedestrian in using said sidewalk at that place, using ordinary care ? Yes. (9) Was the defendant city and its officers chargeable with the condition and care of its streets and sidewalks guilty of any want of ordinary care on their part which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; — a proximate cause being an efficient, first cause, by reason of which a man of ordinary intelligence would at the time and place and under the circumstances in question have anticipated that a pedestrian passing over said sidewalk on foot was liable to fall and be injured by reason of the condition of the sidewalk at that, place? Yes. (10) Was the plaintiff guilty of any want of ordinary care on her part which proximately caused or contributed to the injury of which she complains ? • No. (11) If the court should be of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment, at what sum do you assess her damages ? $2,500.”
    Upon this verdict judgment for the plaintiff was rendered,, and the defendant appeals.
    
      Om'l Bunge, city attorney, and O. H. Hamilton, of counsel,, for the appellant.
    For the respondent there was a brief by Qucvries, Spence-dk Quarles, and oral argument by W. 0. Quarles.
    
   The following opinion was filed May 15, 1900:

Winslow, J.

All the errors assigned in this case are-based upon rulings made upon the trial, hence they cannot, be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions. No such bill has been returned to this court, although the printed' casé contains what purports to be a copy of a regularly settled bill of exceptions. We cannot, however, consider it,, as the record contains no bill, and we cannot go beyond the record. Upon the record returned, the only question open is whether the pleadings and the verdict sustain the judgment. Wille v. Bartz, 88 Wis. 424. It is apparent that they do, and hence the judgment must be affirmed.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied September 25,1900.  