
    BILL OF EXCEPTIONS — ERROR.
    [Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
    1908.]
    Swing, Giffen and Smith, JJ.
    
      Raphael M. Pedretti v. Charles A. Pedretti et al.
    Order Refusing Attobnet’s Fees not Review able without Bill op Exceptions.
    An order overruling a motion for compensation for attorneys for services rendered cannot be reviewed on mere exception to the judgment; a bill of exception containing all the evidence in the hearing is essential, in the absence of which it will be assumed that the trial court decided che matter correctly.
    [Syllabus approved by the court.]
    Error to Hamilton common pleas court.
    Galvin & Bauer, for plaintiff in error.
    H. R. Probasco, for defendants in error.
    
      
       Affirming Pedretti v. Pedretti, 18 Dec. 224.
    
   SWING, J.

This is an action in this court to reverse the judgment of the court of common pleas, wherein that court refused to grant the motion of Galvin & Bauer, attorneys in the case for Raphael Pedretti, for compensation for services rendered the plaintiff and receiver and referee. The judgment entry recites that this motion was heard on testimony and was argued by counsel and the court being fully advised overrules said motion. The plaintiff excepted to the overruling of the motion, but no bill of exceptions was taken containing the evidence. Therefore this court cannot say whether the court decided the question correctly or not. A consideration of the evidence alone could show this. In the absence of this evidence, we must assume that the court decided the matter correctly. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Giffen and Smith, JJ., concur.  