
    H. C. BAKER, Respondent, v. C. A. PARKER, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    March 12, 1901.
    
    1. Practice, Trial: PBACTICE APPELLATE. In the case at bar, the appellant has brought to the court of appeals only the record proper, and is only entitled to a review of questions presented by it.
    2. -: -. And an examination of the record proper shows-that plaintiff’s petition stated a cause of action, and that the proper verdict was rendered.
    
      Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry Clay PepperJudge.
    Affirmed.
    
      Flanigan & Tadloclc and Geo. E. Booth for appellant.
    The court erred, first, in the refusal of the Jasper Circuit Court to grant the defendant a continuance. His application was in due form, showed due diligence and materiality, and after having dismissed the cause and then reinstated it, the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the continuance. McKay v. State, 12 Mo. 492; Marsh v. Morse, 18 Mo. 477.
    No brief for respondent furnished reporter.
    
      
      This case was received too late to be placed in chronological order.
    
   BOND, J.

The appeal in this case is taken by a certificate of the clerk, showing the rendition of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in the lower court and the allowance of an appeal therefrom to this court. Appellant has filed in this court printed matter containing a copy of the petition in the lower court and a statement of certain happenings thereafter, such as a change of venue to Lawrence county, a motion for a continuance, the refusal of the same, a motion to make more definite and certain a verdict of the jury and setting forth certain answers contained in two depositions which were excluded from evidence, but no further matter from such depositions is set forth, nor is any evidence given, nor is it shown any exceptions were taken at the time to the giving by the court of the instructions for plaintiff, nor does the printed matter itself purport to be an abstract. It is perfectly obvious that under this showing, appellant has brought to this court by his appeal only the record proper, and is only entitled to a review of questions presented by it.

An examination of the record proper does not disclose that it failed to state a cause of action or that it did not warrant the verdict returned by the jury. It is apparent under this state of the record, presented in support of the appeal, that we can only affirm the judgment of the lower court, which is accordingly done.

All concur.  