
    Garbanati v. The Board of County Commissioners of Uinta County.
    Eeros. — The supreme court will not consider alleged errors in the record unless accompanied by a bill of exceptions, in which the motion for a new trial, made in the court below, is incorporated.
    Error to the District Court of Uinta County.
    On the 2d of December 1878, H. Garbanati, the plaintiff in error, presented a bill to the board of county commissioners of Uinta county for if935, for fees as county and prosecuting attorney for Uinta countjn The board disallowed the bill and Garbanati appealed to the district court, where the case was tried on the 11th of January 1879, and a judgment rendered for the defendant, the board of county commissioners.
    No bill of exceptions had been signed as required by Rule 5 of the supreme court, and the defendant in error moved to dismiss the proceedings in error on the ground of irregularity.
    
      II. Grarbanati, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. W. Oorlett, for defendant in error.
   Blair, J.

This case must go where many have gone before, and where, doubtless, if we can judge the future by the past, many will follow it: out of court. Almost from the time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, this court by a standing rule has declared, that they will not consider alleged errors in a record unless accompanied by a bill of exceptions, in which the motion for a new trial made in the court below is incorporated. In this case there is no bill, or pretended bill of exceptions, duly allowed by the court below, and, reasoning from cause to effect, the absence of the motion for a new trial is apparent.

The motion of the defendant in error is sustained, and writ of error dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

Peck J., dissenting.  