
    Argued March 17,
    
    affirmed April 12, 1921.
    In Re LEIGH’S ESTATE. CLADEK v. SHEPARD.
    (196 Pac. 1115.)
    Appeal and Error — Record Held not Properly Authenticated.
    1. Where the certificate of the trial judge attached to the bill of exceptions refers to exhibits said to bo attached thereto and made part thereof, and declares that the bill of exceptions contains a full and correct account of all proceedings on trial and all testimony necessary to illustrate the exceptions, but there are no exhibits attached to the bill, and there is no report of testimony authenticated by the trial judge or any official reporter, which is true of certain checks alluded to in defendant appellant’s brief, the Supreme Court cannot examine the case for want of a sufficient and properly authenticated record.
    From Marion: Percy R. Kelly, Judge.
    Department 1.
    In the matter of the estate of James B. Leigh, deceased. Claim by Charles Cladek against Ephraim Shepard, administrator. From judgment for the claimant, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief prepared and submitted by Mr. V. A. Goode and Mr. Walter G. Winslow.
    
    For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. 8. G. Heltzel and Mr. Virgil Mass<ey, with an oral argument by Mr. Heltzel.
   PER CURIAM.

For precisely the same reason announced in Nealan v. Ring, 98 Or. 490 (193 Pac. 199), we cannot examine this case, for want of a sufficient record. The certificate of the trial judge attached to the bill of exceptions refers to exhibits said to be attached thereto and made part thereof, and declares that the bill of exceptions contains a full and correct account of all proceedings had upon the trial of said cause, and all of the testimony produced upon said trial necessary to explain or illustrate the exceptions therein referred to; yet there are no exhibits whatever attached to the bill of exceptions, and there is no report of the testimony authenticated by the trial judge or by any official reporter. The same may be said of certain cheeks alluded to in the defendant’s brief. The same lack of authentication of the record that appeared in Nealan v. Ring occurs in the instant case. We are the more disposed to apply the rule here because the claim against the estate has been allowed over the objection of the administrator by two successive courts.

The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.  