
    [No. 4008.]
    F. M. CALDWELL v. H. G. PARKS.
    Bill of Exceptions. On an appeal from the judgment, a hill of exceptions which is a mere rescript of the testimony by question and answer, with the objections taken and the ruling thereon, will not be considered.
    Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, County of Sonoma.
    Action to recover personal property, or the value thereof. The case was tried before a jury. The testimony occupies about fifty pages of the record. The errors relied on were, first, a refusal to grant a motion for a nonsuit. The record says that defendant’s counsel moved for a nonsuit for two reasons—giving the reasons—and that the motion was denied, and he excepted; second, third and fourth, the refusal of the court to admit testimony offered. The record merely states that the testimony was offered and objected to, giving the ground of the objection, and ruled out, and that the defendant excepted. Fifth and sixth, the refusal of the court to give instructions asked by the defendant. The plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant appealed from the judgment. The judgment was rendered June 17, 1873, and the bill of exceptions settled July 14, 1873.
    The other facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Thomas & Pressley, for the Appellant.
    
      McCullough & Maslin, for the Respondent.
   By the Court:

The so-called bill of exceptions found in the record, is a mere rescript of the notes of the short-hand reporter of the court below, in which the evidence is detailed by question and answer. The objections taken, and the supposed errors of law relied upon in argument, are not stated in the manner pointed out in section 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor in such a manner as to intelligibly present the questions supposed by counsel to be involved upon this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.  