#### Walter H. Browne v. August F. Nussbaumer.

Gen. No. 11,685.

1. Verdict—when not reviewed in order to ascertain whether it is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Where the bill of exceptions does not show a motion for a new trial, the action of the court overruling the same and an exception to such ruling, the question as to whether the verdict is contrary to the evidence,, will not be considered on appeal.

Action of assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1904.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 5, 1905.

Mbrki & Potter, for appellant.

Ho appearance for appellee.«

Mr. Justice Adams

delivered the opinion of the court. Appellant sued appellee for compensation for services which he avers he performed for appellee, by appellee’s request, in the sale or exchange of the latter’s real property, and recovered judgment for the sum of $50, which he claims is less than he is entitled to. He moved for a new trial, which the court overruled, and he appealed.

The only objection argued by counsel is, that .there is no *502basis in the evidence for the verdict. The so-called bill of exceptions contains only the evidence. It does not contain a single exception, nor does it contain a motion for a new trial. The only references to a motion for a new trial are in the common-law record, or record proper. The statement by the clerk in the judgment order, or elsewhere in . the record proper, is not sufficient. James v. Dexter et al., 113 Ill. 654; McIntosh v. Barnes, 54 Ill. App. 274. When a motion for a new trial is made and overruled, the motion, the ruling of the court thereon, and an exception to the ruling must appear, in the bill of exceptions; otherwise the ruling will not be reviewed here. James v. Dexter, supra; Graham v. The People, 115 Ill. 566; Firemen’s Ins. Co. v. Peck, 126 Ill. 493; Steffy v. The People, 130 Ill. 98; East • St. L. E. St. R’d Co. v. Cauley, 148 Ill. 490; C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Town of Calumet, 151 Ill. 512; Van Cott v. Sprague, 5 Ill. App. 99; Schmidt v. Skelly, 9 Ill. App. 532; Cline v. T. St. L. etc. R’d Co., 41 Ill. App. 516; E. St. L. E. • St. R’d Co. v. Cauley, 49 Ill. App. 310; Schwartz v. Kerloosky, 51 Ill. App. 371.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.