
    FIRST NAT. BANK OF DENVER v. WILDER.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    February 13, 1900.)
    No. 1,341.
    Bills of Exception — Amendment.
    A circuit court of appeals will not make an order either allowing an amendment of a bill of exceptions in that court, or authorizing its amendment in the court below, to supply matters omit led from the original bill.
    In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.
    Charles J. Hughes, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
    Lucius M. Cu ihbert, for defendant in error.
    Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.
   CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

A motion is made in this case by the Eirst National Bank of Denver, the plaintiff in error, “for a rule or order permitting it to file a supplemental bill of exceptions” to bring to the attention of this court an alleged occurrence at the trial of the cause of which no mention is made in the bill of exceptions contained in the record now on Ale in this court. The motion is accompanied by several affidavits, which purport to set out certain remarks of the attorney for the defendant in error in his argument of the case to the jury in the circuit court. Whether the motion made contemplates that this court shall accept these affidavits as a. supplemental bill of exceptions, or shall order the lower court to accept them and grant a supplemental hill of exceptions founded thereon, or what “rale or order’’ it is desired that this court shall make in the premises, is not indicated by the motion, and it is not material to inquire; for, in any aspect of the question, the motion must be and is denied, on the authority of the following cases: Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 298, 12 Sup. Ct. 450, 36 L. Ed. 162; Honey v. Railroad Co., 27 C. C. A. 262, 82 Fed. 773; Rollins v. Board, 24 C. C. A. 298, 78 Fed. 741; Case v. Hall, 36 C. C. A. 259, 94 Fed. 300, 302.  