
    Daniel F. Buckley v. Joel Eaton, Jr., and Same v. E. L. H. and Charles S. Gardiner.
    Assignment op eruoks — abstract. Upon an appeal to this court, tvliere there was no assignment of errors upon the record in accordance with the rule of court in that regard, and none accompanying the record, and the appellant failed to file an abstract in the manner required, but instead thereof merely a printed index to the transcript, the court refused to consider the case, and affirmed the judgment of the court below.
    Appeals from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. WilliaM A. Porter, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. JoHN L. DoraN, for the appellant.
    Messrs. SawiN & Wells, for the appellees E. L. H. & Charles S. Gardiner, and Mr. S. M. Davis, for the appellee Eaton.
   Per Curiam :

In these eases there is no assignment of errors found upon the record, as required by the rule of court, nor do we find any accompanying the record; and the rule in reference to abstracts has been disregarded. Appellant, in each case, has failed to prepare and file an abstract of the record; but there has been filed in each case a printed index to the transcript. We must presume the attorney was aware of the rules of the court, and has intentionally disregarded them.

As the cases have not been prepared as required by the rule, we decline to consider them, and affirm the judgments.

Judgments affirmed.  