#### City of Alton, impleaded with Ellen Alvina Foulds, v. Eugene Lavenue, Jr.

1. Bill op Exceptions—When it Does Not Purport to Contain all the Evidence.—When the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the testimony given on the trial, this court can not determine whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Trespass on the Case, for damages sustained in grading down a street. Trial in the City Court of Alton; the Hon. Alexander W. Hope, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant.

Heard in this court at the August term, 1898.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 10, 1899.

Henry S. Baker, attorney for appellant.

John F. McGinnis, attorney for appellee.

*142Per Curiam.

This is an action on the case begun by appellee against the City of Alton and one Alvina Foulds (since deceased), to recover damages for injury done to appellee’s property by grading down the street in front of it. There was a trial by jury and a verdict for the plaintiff for $400. A motion for a new trial was made on behalf of the city, which was overruled, and judgment was entered on the verdict for the entire amount of damages found by the jury, although counsel on each side say in their briefs that plaintiff remitted $50 of the verdict, but there is nothing of the kind in the record.

The city has brought the case here by appeal, and asks for a reversal of the judgment on the sole ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; but whether it is or not, we have no means of knowing, as the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence given on the trial. In the case of Cogshall v. Beesley, 76 Ill. 445, the court said: “ The practice is well settled, that where the bill of exceptions fails to show that it contains all of the evidence in the case, we will not examine whether the evidence it does contain supports the verdict. Miner v. Phillips, 42 Ill. 123.”

There is nothing we can do but affirm the judgment, which is done. J udgement affirmed.