
    J. Nachamchik et al. vs. Hyman Lipschitz.
    Third Judicial District, New Haven,
    January Term, 1922.
    Wheeler, C. J., Beach, Gager, Curtis and Burpee, Js.
    Assignments of error relating to rulings which do not appear in the finding are not properly before this court.
    Alleged errors in finding the facts should include therein the desired corections in the finding by way of elimination or addition.
    Where an appeal is plainly defective, the trial court ought not to certify the evidence.
    Argued January 19th
    decided February 21st, 1922.
    Action to recover the reasonable value of services rendered and materials furnished, brought to and tried by the District Court of Waterbury, Makepeace, Deputy-Judge; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs for $ 530, and appeal by the defendant.
    
      No error.
    
    
      Albert W. Hummel, for the appellant (defendant).
    
      Philip N. Bernstein, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
   Per Curiam.

The first two assignments of error relate to rulings on evidence but these do not appear in the finding and hence are not before the court; the next nine assignments comprise alleged errors in finding the facts, but neither the corrections desired, nor the-matter to be stricken out nor that added, are set out in the appeal as required by the statute, rules of practice, and our decisions thereunder. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Cambell, 97 Conn. 251, 116 Atl. 186.

The final assignment of error, that the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff, is not well taken, since the facts found abundantly support the judgment rendered.

The appeal is so plainly defective that the trial court ought not to have certified the evidence. Appeals taken in reliance upon the method provided by General Statutes, § 5832, must conform to the established practice; otherwise the trial court should refuse to certify the evidence.

There is no error.  