UNITED STATES V. H. V. SEIXAS. 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus H. V. SEIXAS.
No. 64. Argued April 20, 1910. Decided September 7, 1910.
CERTIORARI. PETITION.
A petition filed in the Supreme Court praying for the issuance of the writ of
certiorari, which contains no averment that the exceptions taken at the trial -or to the rulings of the court in denying an appeal were preserved by
bill of exceptions, can not be heard in this court.
Application by petitioner for a writ of certiorari directed to the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit; Hon. H. A. Gudger, judge.
C. P Fairmctn for petitioner. Frank Feuile for respondent.
LORIN C. COLLINS, J. This cause comes on to be heard on the motion of the respondent to quash the writ of certiorari on three grounds, which are, as follows:
First. This court is without jurisdiction:
(a) Because the petition for the writ was not presented to this court; nor was the writ awarded by it; nor was any action had by the court thereon.
(b) Because it is not made to appear in the petition that the trial court omplained of, exceeded its jurisdiction in any manner. Second. If as contended for by plaintiff in error he was entitled to an appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the Circuit Court, which the defendant in error specially denies, his petition fails to show that he has made any effort to perfect an appeal in the manner provided by law.
In the consideration of the question whether the writ was improvidently issued, the las-t point raised is, in the opinion of the court, sufficient to dispose of the cause.
The petition contains no averment that the exceptions taken at the trial or to the ruling of the court in denying the appeal to this court were preserved by bill of exceptions.
This court can not review the evidence in any cause,. unless the same is preserved in the manner pointed out in the Code.
The refusal to allow an appeal can not be availed of, unless the party aggrieved thereby excepts to the denial thereof and pre. serves said exception in his bill. (Sec. 136, C. C. P.)
The very full and complete exhibit of the respondent does not help the plaintiff in error as it shows that nothing was done to preserve for this eourt the exceptions made in the court below, and that there was a total failure to exhaust clear legal remedies.

45