
    Penn, Jr. v. Keene, et al.
    (Decided June 19, 1925.)
    Appeal from .Jefferson Circuit Court (Common Pleas Branch, Fourth Division).
    Appeal and Error — Refusal of 'Continuance Presumed Correct, in Absence of Contrary Showing. — Denial by eourt of plaintiffs motion for continuance will be presumed correct, in absence of any showing on appeal why or upon what grounds he sought continuance, what evidence was in trial court, or what the instructions were, where plaintiff filed no motion and grounds for new trial.
    WM. H. THOMAS for appellant.
    X. D. GREENE for appellees.
   .Opinion op the Court by

Drury, Commissioner

Affirming.

The plaintiff has appealed because he recovered nothing upon his petition against the appellees, and the appellees recovered $495.08 against plaintiff on their counterclaim. On March 2, 1922, an automobile owned and driven by plaintiff collided with a motor truck owned by defendants, and driven by Clifford Keene. Each alleges that the other was to blame for the collision. Plaintiff sued for $3,000.00 for personal injuries sustained, $350.00 for damages to his automobile, and $210.00 for surgical attention, hospital bills, etc. Defendants counterclaimed -for $495.08 for damages to their motor truck. When the case was called for trial on February 5, 1924, plaintiff’s motion for a continuance was overruled. The jury returned a verdict for $495.08 in favor of the defendants. As we have before us nothing to show why or upon what grounds plaintiff sought a continuance, what the evidence was in the trial court, what the instructions were, and as the plaintiff filed no motion and grounds for a new trial, the presumption in favor of the correctness of that court’s action must prevail.

The judgment is affirmed.  