
    SCHURTZ v. KELLEY.
    Continuance — Denial—Review.
    Circuit Court Rule No. 22 (a) provides that no motion for continuance, made after the first day in term, shall be heard, unless a sufficient excuse is shown for the delay. Held, that the denial of a motion for continuance, made in the second week of the term, was not open for review, where the delay was unexplained.
    Error to St. Joseph; Yaple, J.
    Submitted January 4, 1899.
    Decided February 21, 1899.
    Summary proceedings by John G. Schurtz, administrator of the estate of Elemanda Bogert, deceased, against James W. Kelley and wife, to recover the possession of land. From a judgment for complainant, defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      H. J. Barton, for appellants.
    
      H. P. Stewart, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

This case originated in justice’s court. In the circuit court, defendants moved a continuance, which was refused.' Both parties noticed the case for trial. The motion was not made till the second week of the term, and no excuse was shown for delay in making the motion the first day of term, under Cir. Ct. Rule No. 22.

Judgment affirmed.  