Case Name: Hollowell v. Wark, Administratrix
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1925-04-02
Citations: 82 Ind. App. 618
Docket Number: No. 12,234
Parties: Hollowell v. Wark, Administratrix.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Hollowell v. Wark, Administratrix.
[No. 12,234.
Filed April 2, 1925.]
Appeal.—Cause assigned as ground for new trial must be clear and specific, so an appellate tribunal will not have to search-the record.—A cause for a new trial must be clear and specific, so that the court will not need to search the record to find the alleged error, and assigning as a cause for a new trial “errors in admitting evidence to which defendant then and there excepted” presents no question for review on appeal.
From Franklin Circuit Court; Cecil C. Tague, Judge.
Action between Clem Hollowell and Leota Wark, Administratrix of the estate of Rillia J. Hollowell. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals.
Affirmed.
John H. Thorndike and M. P. Hubbard, for appellant.
I. N. McCarty and O. S. Boling, for appellee.

Opinion:
Nichols, J.
The only point which appellant undertakes to present is error of the court in admitting' certain evidence. The only cause for a new-trial by which he undertakes to present this point is "for errors in admitting' evidence to which defendant then and there excepted."
Such an assignment presents no question. Causes for a new trial must be clear and specific so that the court will not need to search the record to find the alleged errors. Bayless v. Glenn (1880), 72 Ind. 5, 11; Staser v. Hogan (1889), 120 Ind. 207, 21 N. E. 911, 22 N. E. 990; Rees v. Blackwell (1893), 6 Ind. App. 506, 33 N. E. 938.
Affirmed.