
    Reese P. Stitt v. Christian Brendel, Jr.
    Bill of exceptions &emdash; presumption in absence of. In. a case where there were no written pleadings, and there was no bill of exceptions showing the issues tried on the evidence ? He Id, that this court could only regard the verdict and judgment to see if the latter was in accordance with the former, and must presume that the verdict was responsive to the issues presented.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of JoDaviess county; the Hon. William Brown, Judge, presiding.
    This was an action of replevin, originally commenced before a justice of the peace. On the trial in the circuit court, the verdict of the jury was : “We, the jury, find the property in the plaintiff, and assess his damages, for the use of the property replevied, at one cent.” The defendant below moved the court for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, which the court overruled, and rendered the following judgment: “That plaintiff recover of defendant his damages of one cent, assessed by the jury, and a general judgment for costs by him herein expended, and have execution therefor.”
    
      Mr. M. Y. Johnson, for the appellant.
    Messrs. Luke & Stahl, for the appellee.
   Per Curiam :

There are no written pleadings in this case, and the record contains no bill of exceptions.

The several motions made, and the reasons therefor, are not before us. They form no part of the record, and must be brought before the court by bill of exceptions.

We can only regard, in this record, the verdict and judgment. The judgment is in accordance with the verdict, and we must presume that the verdict was responsive to the issue presented.

There is nothing to show to the contrary, and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  