Hughes v. Ainslee

28 Ind. 346

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Decided: November 15, 1867
• Status: Published

Opinion

Ray, J.

— The appellant informs us that, “waiving all other objections to the ruling of the court below, he relies upon the error of the court in overruling the affidavit for a continuance, to reverse this case.”

There are at least three somewhat serious objections to a reversal upon that ground. The affidavit is not made part of the record by bill of exceptions. The ruling of the court upon the motion for a continuance was not assigned as a cause for a new trial in the court below. Grey v. Stiver et al., 24 Ind. 174; Kent v. Lawson, 12 Ind. 675. There was no motion for a new trial.

H. Heffren, for appellant. J. A. Ghormley and M. C. Kerr, for appellee.

The judgment is affirmed, with five per cent, damages, and costs.