
    D. H. HELTZELL & COMPANY, Respondent, v. JAMES McDOWELL, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    February 1, 1909.
    APPELLATE PRACTICE: Abstract: Record Proper: Bill of Exceptions. Where the abstract fails to show whether the matter abstracted is in the record proper or in the bill of exceptions, it leaves the case without any exception and with nothing to review save the record proper.
    Appeal from Moniteau Circuit Court. — Eon. Wm. H. Martin, Judge.
    AFFIRMED.
    
      
      R. L. Kay and L. F. Wood for appellant.
    The abstract states all the facts necessary to enable the conrt to pass on the instructions and other questions presented. Christian v. McDonnell, 127 Mo. App. 630; State ex rel. v. Smith, 172 Mo. 446.
    
      R. M. Embry for respondent. ■
    Appellant’s abstract does not meet the requirements of the rules of court, nor of the decisions. R. S. 1899, sec. 813. Two juries have found alike for respondent. The judgment was for the right party and should not be interrupted.
   ELLISON, J.—

This action was begun before a justice of the peace whence it was taken by appeal to the circuit court where plaintiff had judgment and defendant appealed to this court.

Plaintiff insists that there is no bill of exceptions shown to have been filed. The abstract presented here makes no distinction between the record proper and the bill of exceptions and it is not possible to say whether matter pertaining to the record proper is shown in such record, or whether it is only shown in the bill of exceptions. It is not possible to say from the abstract whether the matter abstracted is in the record quoper or in the bill of exceptions.

The effect of this is to leave the case before us without any exceptions. [Thompson v. Ruddick, 213 Mo. 561, 111 S. W. 1131, and cases cited therein; City of Macon v. Jaeger, 133 Mo. App. 643, 113 S. W. 1138.]

There being no error in the record properly before us, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.  