#### Chicago Telephone Company, Defendant in Error, v. Eliza Haley, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 19,670.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and error, § 966 * —when record presents no question for review. On writ of error to review a judgment in replevin where there is nothing for review except the common-law record which contains nothing but the replevin affidavit, writ and bond, the entry of defendant’s appearance and the judgment order, the latter reciting that evidence was heard, but such evidence was not preserved in *36the record, held in the absence of any irregularities on the face of the record there was nothing to review.

*35Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert H. Scott, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 19, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Replevin by Chicago Telephone Company against Eliza Haley to recover a telephone equipment of the value of fourteen dollars. To reverse a judgment in favor of paintiff, defendant brings error.

Plaintiff in error undertook to handle her own case in this court.

Eliza Haley, per se.

Holt, Cutting & Sidley, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Yols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Per Curiam.

*362. Appeal and error, § 866*—when abstract insufficient. Where what is designated an “abstract” contains nothing more than a party’s own statement of what took place at the trial, and is not an abstract of anything preserved in the record, the statements therein cannot he considered.