
    McKinney v. Hartman.
    In the appellate court, the presumption is, that the ruling of the court below was correct.
    It is the duty of the party alleging error, to sh.ow it affirmatively.
    Where there is nething in the record to show the applicability of testimony oifered and rejected, the Supreme Court cannot presume a state of case to make error.
    
      Appeal from the Davis District Court.
    
    This cause was brought into the District Court by writ of error, to correct an alleged erroneous decision of a justice of the peace. From the bill of exceptions it appears, that before the justice, the defendant offered in evidence certain books of account, which were objected to, and the objection sustained, which ruling was affirmed by the District Court. Defendant appeals, and assigns for error the judgment of the court below, affirming the decision of the justice.
    
      M. H. Jones, for the appellant.
    
      Palmer & Trimble and Knapp & Caldwell, for the appellee.
   Wright, C. J.

There is nothing in the record to. show what was the defendant’s defence to plaintiff’s action. Whether he pleaded payment, or set-off, or in what way the charge in the books of account offered in evidence, were applicable to the cause of action or defence, does not appear. Under such circumstances, it is impossible for us to know ■whether the justice did or did not err, in rejecting said books. Eor aught that appears, there was no foundation in the pleadings to warrant the testimony, and we cannot presume a state of case to make error. The presumption is, that the ruling was correct, and it is for the party alleging error, to show it affirmatively. This has been too frequently settled to be now questioned.

Judgment affirmed.  