Goldman

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents in the sum of $400 for legal services. The case was tried by a jury, which returned a verdict for $750, which amount was subsequently reduced with the consent of respondents as a condition to the denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Appellant urges three grounds upon which the judgment should be reversed: First, under the facts plaintiffs are not entitled to any recovery; second, the court erred in refusing to” give certain instructions requested by defendant, and, third; the court erred in giving certain instructions requested by plaintiffs.

Appellant’s first ground of objection, “that under the facts plaintiffs are not entitled to any recovery,” is not available to him. He chose to appeal by a bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions contains no specifications of particulars wherein the facts do not entitle respondents to a recovery—wherein the evidence is insufficient to support or justify the verdict. Such specifications are necessary in order to authorize the court to review the evidence and consider its sufficiency. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 648; Winterburn v. Chambers, 91 Cal. 185 [ 27 Pac. 658 ]; Meades v.…