#### Samuel Atkins, Defendant in Error, v. William Smith, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,666.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert H. Scott, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 6, 1915.

*167Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and error, § 1414 * —when finding of trial court not disturbed on appeal. A finding of a trial court that services of a court stenographer were rendered to an attorney instead of his client will not be disturbed on appeal, it appearing that such finding was not clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

2. New trial, § 76 * —when properly denied. A motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is properly denied where the affidavits show that such evidence is merely cumulative, and there is nothing to show that the party, at the trial, attempted to secure such evidence, or asked for a continuance to obtain it.

Statement of the Case.

Suit by Samuel Atkins against William Smith for services rendered in reporting a case wherein defendant was attorney for the plaintiff. On the trial below before the court without a jury, the court found the issues for the plaintiff and entered judgment against the defendant for $19.75, to reverse which the defendant has sued out this writ of error.

William C. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

*

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

Mr. Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.