#### Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Matilda Johnson.

Railroads—Personal Injuries—Bill of Exceptions—Failure to Sign and Seal.

This court, declines to "consider an appeal by a railroad company in an action brought to recover from it for a personal injury alleged to have been occasioned through its negligence, for the reason that the bill of exceptions was not signed and sealed by the trial judge.

[Opinion filed February 8, 1890.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Knox County; the Hon. T. M. Shaw, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. O. F. Price and Jack & Tichenor, for- appellant.

*352Messrs. L. Harmon and McCulloch & McCulloch, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This appeal is brought to reverse the judgment obtained in the court below of $3,000 obtained by appellee against appellant for personal injuries received by a fall from the platform of appellant’s car while attempting to alight from the train, the declaration charging negligence on the part of the conductor of the train in removing his support and letting her drop while she was leaning on his arm for support while ascending the steps from the platform. It is the same case reported in 24 Ill. App. 468.

The only reliance of appellant for 'reversal is upon questions growing out of the evidence, and‘admissibility of evidence and questions depending thereon. These supposed errors can not be availed of in this courtf or the reason that there appeal’s to be no bill of exceptions in the case. There appears to be no signature of the judge who tried the cause attached to the portion of the record purporting to be a copy of the bill of exceptions and no seal. All bills of exceptions are required by the statute to be signed and sealed by the judge who tries the cause. This being the case, we must presume the evidence supported the verdict and that the court below acted in all things according to the law.

The iudgment is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.