The Court is therefore not permitted to conjecture on what evidence may have been offered upon the one side or upon the other. It is limited to what is contained in the bill of exceptions. Bates v. Cigar Co., 137 Me. 51; Bronson Aplt., 136 Me. 401; Byrne v. Byrne, 135 Me. 330. The findings state no facts, and are simply "that judgment should be for the defendant." The plaintiff alleged that the defendant said "The Internal Revenue Department is checking up and someone is going to jail and it won't be me.

The aggrievance must be shown affirmatively. It cannot be left to inference. Bryne v. Bryne et al., 135 Me. 330, 331, 332, 196 A. 402. This record does not disclose the date of the birth of the child. The difference between Pauline's eleventh and twelfth year so far as this record shows might have been only a matter of hours or even minutes, in which case it would be extremely improbable that it would have affected the degree of care chargeable to the child.

There a question of law is raised ( Rhoda v. Drake, Jr., 125 Me. 509, 131 A. 573), and all of the evidence by necessity becomes a part of the case, even though not mentioned in the bill. People's National Bank v. Nickerson, 108 Me. 341, 80 A. 849; Williams v. Sweet, 121 Me. 118, 115 A. 895; Brown v. Sanborn, 131 Me. 53, 158 A. 855; Bryne v. Bryne et al., 135 Me. 330, 196 A. 402. It may be said, however, that the record (evidence is printed therein although not made a part of the bill) discloses ample, credible evidence to support the finding of the justice below.

It does not appear that this way was ever legally established as a street or a highway. But may not the facts herein, viewed most favorably for the plaintiffs, as they must be ( Gould v. Maine Central Transportation Company, 136 Me. 83, 1 A.2d 908; Bryne v. Bryne et al., 135 Me. 330, 333, 196 A. 402), preclude the defendant from denying that it owed them a duty of due care? Was the driver of the truck an invitee by implication? No express invitation is claimed.