
    Vineyard et al., Appellants, v. Matney.
    Practice. The Supreme Court will not review the rulings of the trial court on the admissibility of evidence, unless the attention of the latter court has been called to the supposed error by the motion for new trial. It is not sufficient that exceptions were duly taken at the trial.
    
      Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. Jos. P. Grubb, Judge.
    
      Vories, Loan and Vineyard for appellants.
    
      Bennett Pike for respondent.
   Sherwood, C. J.

Action based on written contract. The ease hinges upon the propriety of the admission. of parol evidence in reference to that contract. Although exception was taken to the admission of such evidence, yet, as the attention of the court was not called to the alleged error in the motion for new trial, and opportunity thus afforded for correction of the supposed error, we cannot notice the point here. Brady v. Connelly, 52 Mo. 19; Saxton v. Allen, 49 Mo. 417; and the case stands here precisely as if the evidence had been admitted without objection. Margrave v. Ausmuss, 51 Mo. 561. Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

Arrirmed.  