Coberth

■ Appellant seeks the reversal of the judgment for error in denying a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the evidence, upon the ground that the evidence-fails to show any act of negligence or malpractice on his part. Appellee moves to-strike out the bill of exceptions, on the.ground that it is not in condensed, narrative form as required by rule 10 of the rules of practice of this court, which requirement has been adjudicated by this court in the eases of McDonald v. Harding, 57 F.(2d) 119 ; Hursh v. Killits, 58 F.(2d) 903 ; and Yangtsze Rapid S. S. Co. v. Deutseh-Asiatische Bank, 59 F.(2d) 8 .

Appellant seeks to obviate rule 10 by saying that he felt that all of the evidence must be brought before this court, in view of the determination of the issue resting almost exclusively upon expert evidence, and that the cases of Hursh v. Killits, and Yangtsze Rapid S. S. Co. v. Deutsch-Asiatische Bank, supra, had not come to his attention until published in the Federal Reporter after the 1st day of July, 1932, following the decisions, and there was then not time to comply with rule 10 as required by those two cases. But *157 this is no justification. The language of rule…