Opinion by

This cause comes on .to ho heard upou a motion by defendants in error, filed December 22d, to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the case-made fails to show:

(1) “That the motion for a new trial was filed within 3 days after the rendition of the verdict.”

(2) “That the motion for new trial was filed at the same term the verdict was rendered.”

On November IS. 1915. plaintiff in' error filed a motion asking that the case-made be regarded by this court as amended, or the case-made he withdrawn for correction, so as to show the motion for new trial was timely made. This court “is not authorized (o supply omissions or make corrections in the record of the trial court.” Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436. Hence that part of said motion which asks that the court regard the amendment as made, should he denied.

As the case-made now stands, tlio motion to dismiss is well taken, but the plaintiff in error having made timely motion to /correct the record, so as to show that the motion for new trial was timely made, this court will not dismiss the appeal until opportunity he given plaintiff in error to correct the said case-made, and the motion of plaintiff in error, so far as the same seeks to withdraw the case-made for the purpose of correcting same, should be granted. Section 5243, Rev. Laws 1910.

Plaintiff in error will he allowed to withdraw from this court the case-made filed in this cause, to have said case-made, corrected by five trial court, as to when the motion for a new trial was actually made, and to refile said ease-made in this court within 30 days from flu's date: flic plaintiff in error to give the defendant in error reasonable notice of his action to have said ease:made corrected.

By the Court: If is so ordered.