Hughes v. Ainslee

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 [347] 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.