
    Mound Bayou Oil Mill & Mfg. Co. v. Charley Lindsley.
    [63 South. 298.]
    Appeal and Ebkob. Record. ' Bill of exceptions. Necessity for.
    
    A hill of exceptions is not necessary, in order that an appeal may he considered by the supreme court, unless, in order to decide questions raised, it becomes necessary for the court to look into the evidence, and hence a case will not be dismissed because no bill of exceptions is found in the record, as the court may be able to pass upon the assignment of error without an examination of the evidence.
    Appeal from the circuit court of Bolivar county.
    How. T. B. WatkiNs, Judge.
    Suit by the Mound Bayou Oil Mill and Manufacturing Company against Charles Lindsley. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    The facts are fully stated in the opinion- of the court.
    
      Mayes & Mayes, attorneys for appellant.
    
      W. G. Hardee and Boddie & Parish, attorneys for ap-pellee.
    The record in this case has been lost.
   ,'Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a motion by appellee to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the evidence introduced at the trial was not preserved by means of a bill of exceptions. A bill ■of exceptions, is not necessary, in order that an appeal may be considered by this court, unless, in order to decide the questions raised, it becomes necessary for the court to look into the evidence. The necessity to dó this, of ■course, depends upon the character of the assignment of •error. It may be that none of appellant’s assignments of ■error will require an examination of the evidence, so that •the question here raised can arise only when the cause .is submitted to the court on the merits.

Overruled.  