
    Kinnear, Adm’r of Strope, v. Tucker et al.
    Bill of Exceptions — defective. If evidence, offered by a defendant to disprove tbe plaintiff's case, is excluded by tbe court, tbe bill of exceptions should contain tbe evidence given on bebalf of tbe plaintiff, in order that tbis court may determine tbe relevancy of tbe evidence so excluded.
    Presumption infamor of judgment. It must be shown affirmatively that tbe district court erred; tbis court will not presume it.
    
      Error to District Court, Jefferson County.
    
    Dependants in error sued Strope in the district court of Jefferson county, and declared specially upon a failure to return certain cattle, and added the common counts. Upon the trial below, Strope offered in evidence certain orders and receipts for cattle, signed by one or both of the defendants in error. The evidence given on behalf of defendants in error in the court below was not embodied in the bill of exceptions.
    Mr. L. B. France, for plaintiff in error.
    Messrs. J. Bright Smith and George F. Crocker, for defendants in error.
   Hallett, C. J.

We are asked to reverse this judgment because the district court improperly excluded from the jury certain evidence offered by the defendant in that court. There is nothing in the bill of exceptions, except the evidence, which was offered and rejected.

As all the evidence given upon the trial below is not before us, we are unable to say whether the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions was properly excluded. It must be shown affirmatively that the court below erred; we cannot presume it. Ballance v. Leonard, 37 Ill. 43.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.  