
    Christiana A. Skinner vs. George H. Gray.
    Suffolk.
    November 9, 1880.
    Lord & Soule, JJ., absent.
    The decision of a judge of the Superior Court upon a question of foreign law, depending upon the construction of statutes and decisions, cannot be revised by this court upon a bill of exceptions which fails to show what statutes or decisions were before the court below.
    Contract on a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in the county of Gilpin and State of Colorado, a transcript of which was certified by him to the District Court of that county. Trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
    The plaintiff put in evidence a transcript of the record, by which it appeared that the summons in the original action was served by the officer delivering a true copy thereof to the defendant; that the defendant did not appear; and that judgment was rendered as alleged. “ It was agreed that either party might refer to the statutes of Colorado and the decisions of its courts, and the same were considered in evidence.” The defendant asked the judge to rule that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, because the transcript of the record did not show that service was made upon the defendant in accordance with the laws of Colorado. The judge refused so to rule; ruled that the judgment was conclusive; and directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      F. 0. Welch, for the defendant.
    
      Gr. B. Upham, for the plaintiff, was not called upon.
   By the Court.

The service on the defendant in the former action does not appear to have been objected to on any other ground than that it was not in accordance with the laws of Colorado. The bill of exceptions, not showing what statutes or decisions of the State of Colorado were before the court below, does not show that there was any error in the rulings of that curt.

Exceptions overruled.  