#### T. N. Byerly v. Frances H. Wilson.

1. Additional plea—zohen refusal of leave to file, not improper. It is not improper to deny an application made at the trial lor leave to file an additional plea where no showing is made why such application was not sooner made and the character of the plea sought to be filed.

Action in replevin. Appeal from the Circuit Court of DeWitt County; the Hon. Feed C. Hill, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the May term, 1905.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 1, 1906.

John Fullee, for appellant.

E. B. Mitchell and Edwabd J. Sweeney, for appellee.

Me. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action in replevin by appellee against appellant, in which, upon the trial, there was a verdict and judgment against appellant. The declaration was filed October 1, 1904, and on January 28,1905, appellant filed three pleas, non eepit, non deúnet, and property in himself.

The cause came on for trial February 1, 1905, and after the jury had been impaneled, counsel for .appellant withdrew the plea of property in appellant and moved the court for leave to file an additional special plea, which motion was denied. The action of the court in denying this motion is the only assignment of error relied upon for a reversal of the judgment.

Counsel for appellant did not indicate to the court the character of the special plea he desired leave to file, nor did he make any showing of a reasonable excuse or failure to file it sooner, nor does it appear that he was then prepared to file such special plea.

Application for leave to file an additional plea, when *663made after a cause has proceeded to trial, is addressed to •the sound discretion of the court, and such application should be supported by a showing of some reasonable excuse for not having interposed the plea as a defense before the cause was called for trial. City of Chicago v. Cook, 204 Ill. 373; McFarland v. Claypool, 128 Ill. 397.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.