ART. 5] APPEALS FROM COURTS OF LAW——BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS. 137

Beauchamp, 91 Md. 658; Worcester v. Ryckman, 91 Md. 39; Lewis v. Top-
man, 90 Md. 306; Mitchell v. State, 82 Md. 531; Buruett v. Bealmear, 79
Md. 40; Thorne v. Fox, G7 Md. 74; Jackson v. Salisbury, 66 Md. 459; McCol-
lough v. Biedler, 66 Md. 283; Ecker v. First National Bank, 62 Md. 519;
Lynn v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 60 Md. 416; McKnew v. Duvall, 45 Md. 501; Third
National Bank v. Boyd, 44 Md. 63; Davis v. State, 39 Md. 386; Gabelein v.
Plaenker. 36 Md. 64; First National Bank v. Jaggers, 31 Md. 52; Dorsey v.
Garey, 30 Md. 499; Horner v. O'Laughlin, 29 Md. 470; Hutton v. Padgett,
26 Md. 231; Kunkel v. Spooner, 9 Md. 462; Manning v. Hays, 6 Md. 10;
Tyson v. Shueey, 5 Md. 552; Coates v. Sangston, 5 Md. 131; Bridendolph v.
Zeller, 5 Md. 63; Cushwa v. Cushwa, 5 Md. 54; Morgan v. Briscoe, 4 Md.
272; Middlekauff v. Smith. 1 Md. 337; Graham v. Sangston, 1 Md. 66; Mil-
burn v. State, 1 Md. 26; Tuck v. Boone, 8 Gill, 189; Carter v. Cross, 7 Gill,
46; Sullivan v. Vlolett, 6 Gill, 190; Schleigh v. Hagerstowu Bank, 4 Gill,
312; Bullit v. Musgrave. 3 Gill, 48; Leopard v. Chesapeake, etc., Canal Co.,
1 Gill, 228; Keefer v. Mattingsly, 1 Gill, 186; Wolfe v. Hauser, 1 Gill, 92:
Gray v. Crook, 12 G. & J. 236; Abell v. Harris, 11 G. & .1. 372; Burgess v.
State, 11 G. & J. 68; State v. Turner, 8 G. & J. 133; Nesbitt v. Dallam, 7 G.
& J. 510; Syles v. Hattou, 6 G. & J. 136; Grahame v. Harris, 5 G. & J. 494;
Sasscer v. Walker, 5 G. & J. 110; Davis v. Lean, 2 G. & J. 307.

The act of 1862. ch. 154, held inapplicable to a case originating before the
passage of said act. Cecil Bank r. Barry. 20 Md. 297.

Prior to the act of 1825, ch. 117, It was the duty of the appellate court
to notice all errors and objections apparent upon the record. Muudell v.
Perry, 2 G. & J. 207.

Cited but not construed in Weber v. Zimmerman, 22 Md. 168; Warner v.
Fowler, 8 Md. 30; Gittings v. Mayhew, 6 Md. 130; Pierson v. Trail, 1 Md.
144; Medley v. Williams, 7 G. & J. 70; Shilknecht v. Eastburne, 2 G. & J. 126.

For cases now apparently inapplicable to this section by reason of changes
in the law, see Dunham v. Clogg. 30 Md. 292; Baltimore v. Poultney, 25 Md.
34 (distinguishing between the assumption of a fact in a prayer and an
insufficiency of evidence to support a prayer).

As to appeals in equity, see sections 36 and 37.

See art. 33, sec. 25, and notes.

1904, art. 5. sec. 10. 1888, art. 5. sec. 10. Rule 5.

10. Bills of exceptions shall be so prepared as only to present to the
court of appeals the rulings of the court below upon some matter of law,
and shall contain only such statement of facts as may be necessary to
explain the bearing of the rulings upon the issues or questions involved ;
and if the facts are undisputed, they shall be stated as facts, and the
evidence from which they are deduced shall not be set out; and if dis-
puted, it shall be sufficient to state that evidence was adduced tending to
prove them, instead of setting out the evidence in detail; but if a defect
of proof be the ground of the ruling or exception, then the particulars
in which the proof is supposed to be defective shall be briefly stated,
and all the evidence offered in anywise connected with such supposed
defect shall be set out in the bill of exception; and it shall be the duty
of the judges in the courts below to require exceptions to be prepared
in acordance with this rule.

There Is no need of a writ of error in order to bring up for review,
rulings on demurrers. Kendrick v. Warren. 110 Md. 77.

Where the proof is supposed to be defective, the particulars of such defect
must be briefly stated in the exception. B. & O. R. R. Co. r. Mali. 66 Md. 57.

Tills section violated in that the particulars in which the proof was
supposed to be defective and all the evidence connected therewith, were not
set out. Wilson v. Merryman. 48 Md. 342.

This section sufficiently complied with. Blake v. Pitcher. 46 Md. 462. See
also Davis v. State, 38 Md. 51.