
    JAMES RANKIN, executor, et al., plaintiffs in error, v. GEORGE ANDERSON et al., defendants in error.
    (Atlanta,
    June Term, 1870.)
    RECORD—DIMINUTION—WANT OF CERTIFICATE BY CLERK.—The want of a certificate hy the Clerk below to what is ' sent here as the record is no ground for suggesting a diminution of the record. (R.)
    SAME—NO CERTIFICATION—DISMISSAL OF CAUSE— MADAM'US.—If, when a cause is called for hearing, there is no record certified from the Court below, the cause will be dismissed. The certificate should have been supplied by a mandamus from the Judge of the Superior Court. (R.)
    BILL OF EXCEPTIONS—EVIDENCE MUST BE INCORPORATED OR ATTACHED.—If the evidence be not set forth in the bill of exceptions, or attached to it and identified by the Judge, the bill of exceptions will be dismissed. (R.)
    Practice. Bill of Exceptions. From Muscogee.
    This was a bill for account in favor of Anderson et al. against James Rankin as executor of William Rankin et al. There was a verdict against defendants and they sued out a bill of exceptions. In reciting the evidence on the trial in the hill of exceptions, it was stated that the complainants read in evidence “the following receipt” and “a note made by William Rankin to Wiliam Matheson. of which the following is a copy,” they also introduced vouchers to shew, etc., “which vouchers were all of record in the Court of Ordinary of Muscogee county,” etc., but neither receipt, note nor voucher was copied or described in the bill of exceptions.
    *It was stated that the Judge gave a certain charge therein specified and refused to charge as requested therein specified, and this charge and refusal are the only alleged errors. The record sent up had on it no certificate from the Clerk below. The hill of Exceptions was certified.
    When it was called here, counsel for plaintiff in error proposed to suggest a diminution of the record in that the paper sent up as the record had no certificate. The Court refused to allow it upon the ground that the want of Clerk’s certificate was not ground for such suggestion, saying mandamus from the Judge of Superior Court was the remedy to supply this defect.
    Counsel for defendant in error moved to dismiss the cause, first, because the errors were not properly assigned; second, because the evidence was not embodied in the bill of exceptions and because the record was not certified. It was dismissed on the last two grounds.
    Peabody & Brannon, Smith & Alexander, for plaintiffs in error.
    R. J. Moses, William Dougherty, for defendants.
     