#### Henry W. Allison and Mary A. Allison v. Margaret E. Allison.

Practice—Appeal—Imperfect Abstract—Mules.

1. The merits of a cause will not be considered by this court, unless an abstract of the record is furnished.

2. An index of the record is not sufficient.

[Opinion filed March 1, 1889.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lawrence County; the lion. Wm. C. Jones, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. C. J. Bobden and Bobinson & Howabd, for appellants.

Messrs. Callahan, Jones & Lowe, for appellee.

The abstract furnished by appellant in this case gives no information as to what the record contains. It is at most but an index to the record. We can not, from this pretended abstract, see whether error is, or is not, well assigned on the record. Neither in matter or form does it comply with rule 21 of this court. Under rule 26 this court should refuse to consider the case on its merits, and dismiss the appeal.

*386 Per Guriam.

This court, in the case of The People ex rel. v. Augerer et al., 23 Ill. App. 450, and in Heep v. Jaenermann, same, 453, declined to consider the merits of a case where there was a non-compliance with rule 7, in making and furnishing abstracts. It is unnecessary for us to repeat what is said in those cases. The rule of the court is there declared.

In this case no effort to furnish an abstract is made, at most merely an index.

We quote from what is filed as an abstract of bill, answer and evidence.

“ 7, 8, 9, complainant’s bill of complaint.

“ 12 to 14, defendant’s answer.

“ 18 to 55, bill of exceptions including all the testimony.”

This is not an attempt to furnish an abstract. It is in no sense a compliance with the rule. We decline to consider the merits of the case, and affirm the decree under rule 26 of this court.

Judgment affirmed.