70 SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

Thereafter an appeal was taken by the relator, herein, defendant in said action in the District Court, to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit. Such proceedings were had in the Circuit Court, that on or about the 21st day of December, 1909, judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court in effect affirming the judgment of the District Court, and on January 4, 1910, as the petition herein alleges, the defendant, relator herein, prayed an appeal from said judgment to the Supreme Court of the -Canal Zone, which said prayer was on the 5th day of February, 1910, denied by the acting judge -of the said circuit, the respondent herein.
Thereafter the relator, defendant in the court below, sued out a writ of certiorari in this court and the same coming on to be heard at the July, 19 10, term of this court, said writ was- quashed.
On the 14th day of September, 19 10, the relator, defendant below, obtained from this court an alternative writ requiring the respondent herein to show cause why mandamus absolute should not issue directing him to forthwith grant the relator the appeal to the Supreme Court of the Canal Zone theretofore prayed by him.
The respondent in the proceeding now before the court prays that the alternative writ of mandamus heretofore granted be quashed, alleging among other allegations of his answer that no bill of exceptions was prepared and presented by the relator to the trial court in order that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court might attach; that the issues in this case have been passed. upon by this court in the matter of the relator's application for a writ of certiorari,.and that from said proceedings in the matter of relator's application for writ of certiorari this court has judicial notice of the fact that no bill of exceptions was prepared and presented by the relator.
In its opinion filed in the matter of the motion to quash the writ of certiorari, heretofore referred to, this court stated as follows: 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 * 0 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 court the exceptions made in the court below, and that there was a total failure to exhaust clear legal remedies.
It does not appear from the petition in the present proceeding that any different state of facts exists from that referred to in the forego;n~ningqutation from the opinionnof this court. There is no

70