#### John Petrey, Plaintiff in Error, v. John A. Rusk and Frank G. Clark, Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 18,736.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Freeman K. Blake, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 20, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by John Petrey against John A. Busk and *42Frank G-. Clark for something which does not appear. The judgment was that plaintiff take nothing hy his suit. To reverse the judgment, plaintiff prosecutes a writ of error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and ebror, § 1752*—when judgment will be affirmed for insufficiency of abstract. A court of review will not go to the record to find reasons to reverse a judgment, and when such reasons do not appear in the abstract the judgment will be affirmed pro forma.

2. Municipal Court op Chicago, § 29*—when sufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed. On writ of error to reverse a judgment of the Municipal Court where there is nothing in the abstract of record or in the argument of plaintiff in error to show what the statement of claim or affidavit of merits contained, a court of review is unable to ascertain what the issues were and is unable to determine whether the evidence supports the findings.

Samuel G. Hamblen, for plaintiff in error.

William J. King and James D. Power, for defendants in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.