Hursh

Petitioners ask a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to settle a bill of exceptions in the ease of United States of America v. Hursh et al. An order to show cause was issued, and respondent appeared in oppoai *904 tion to the petition. It appears that petitioners Hursh and others were convicted of a conspiracy to defraud by use of the mails. Thereafter, within due time, petitioners presented a document of 5,000 legal size pages which they styled “Bill of Exceptions.” It was in fact a transcript of the testimony with some slight omissions, and was in no sense a bill of exceptions. Hard & Rand, Inc., et al. v. Biston Coffee Co. (C. C. A.) 41 F.(2d) 625 ; Hood v. United States (C. C. A.) 43 F.(2d) 353 ; Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Mid-Continent) Petroleum Corp. (C. C. A.) 43 F.(2d) 355 . The trial judge informed counsel when the matter came on for hearing that the document proposed would not be settled by him as a bill of exceptions, for the reason it did not conform to the rules of the court or the law with reference to bills of exceptions, particularly in that it did not reduce the testimony to narrative form. The trial court, however, gave the…