
    Charles Pick v. Henry M. Ketchum et al.
    
    1. Exception—when necessa/ry. If no exception is taken to the refusal of the court to grant a continuance for the absence of witnesses, it can not be assigned for error.
    
      2. Continuance—error in refusal, when obviated. It can not be assigned as error, that the court refused a continuance on the ground of the sickness of the party applying for it, where the record shows he was present and testified fully on the trial.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the lion. Joseph E. Gaby, Judge, presiding.
    Messrs. Sparling- & Beokington, for the appellant.
    Mr. Ekederio TJlmann, for the appellees.
   Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We are unable to discover any grounds for the reversal of this judgment, in the several objections urged.

No exception was taken to the ruling of the court, in refusing to continue the cause on account of the absence of the witnesses, Prachor and Chadelc; and so far as the affidavits for a continuance on account of the sickness of appellant are concerned, it is sufficient that the record shows that he was, in fact, present and testified on the trial, and it does not appear that his evidence was less full and satisfactory than it would have been had the continuance been granted. Even, therefore, if there was error in this respect, it did not prejudice appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  