
    Rotchford v. Creamer, Appellant.
    1. Practice in Supreme Court: bill or exceptions: motion ros new trial. The supreme court will not examine into the merits of a case where no motion for new trial is incorporated in the bill of exceptions, though the bill shows that such a motion was made and was overruled.
    2. Exceptions to referee’s report must appear in bill of exceptions. Where exceptions to a report of a referee are relied on for reversal of a judgment, they must either be incorporated in the bill of exceptions, or so referred so as to identify them.
    
      Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.—IIon. Geo. A. Madill, ■ Judge.
    
      
      Matthew O’Beilley, for appellant, filed an argument elaborately discussing the exceptions to the referee’s report.
    
      Henry A. Glover, of counsel, for appellant.
    
      Grottschalk for respondent.
   Sherwood, C. J.

I. This proceeding had for its object the settling and adjustment of the affairs of a co-partnership. By consent of parties the matters of difference were,by order of the court, submitted to a referee, who took testimony and made his report, which (with the exception of one modification which the court made of its own motion) was confirmed and judgment' rendered for plaintiff, and this judgment the court in general term affirmed. We are precluded from any examination into the merits of the cause, because the motion for a new trial is not incorporated in the bill of exceptions. It is true that bill mentions the fact that the motion for a new trial was overruled; but what that motion was, or that it is even contained in the transcript, is not stated. Under all our previous rulings this defect is fatal.

II. In addition to that, the exceptions to the report of the referee, whereon the defendant relies for a reversal, are not incorporated in the bill of exceptions, nor so reierred to m such bill as to designate and identify them. These reasons require an affirmance of the judgment.

All concur.

Affirmed.  