Case Name: M. L. HAMBURGER, Appellant, v. Malcolm Lee KENNEDY, Sr., Appellee
Court: District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1961-02-24
Citations: 167 A.2d 918
Docket Number: No. 2681
Parties: M. L. HAMBURGER, Appellant, v. Malcolm Lee KENNEDY, Sr., Appellee.
Judges: Before HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges, and CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired) sitting .by designation under Code § 11-776(b).
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 167
Pages: 918–918

Head Matter:
M. L. HAMBURGER, Appellant, v. Malcolm Lee KENNEDY, Sr., Appellee.
No. 2681.
Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued Jan. 23, 1961.
Decided Feb. 24, 1961.
Rehearing Denied March 20, 1961.
M. L. Hamburger, appellant, pro se.
William J. Rowan, Washington, D. C, for appellee.
Before HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges, and CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired) sitting .by designation under Code § 11-776(b).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kennedy sued Hamburger, a general contractor, for carpentry and repair work. The defense was that some of the work was unsatisfactory and that plaintiff had not worked as many hours as claimed. Defendant filed a counterclaim for alleged over-payments. The trial court found for plaintiff on both claims.
On this appeal by defendant one argument is that the decision was against the weight of the evidence. This argument cannot be sustained. We cannot say that on the basis of the conflicting evidence before him, including documentary exhibits, the trial judge was wrong in resolving the issues in favor of plaintiff.
We are asked to rule there was error in permitting plaintiff to use a daily entry book to refresh his recollection. Our study of the matter satisfies us that the procedure involved was entirely proper.
Appellant says the trial court erred in refusing to allow his counsel to withdraw from the case. The record does not show any actual attempt of counsel to withdraw, or any injury or prejudice to appellant in the episode involved. The other assignments of error relate to exclusions of evidence offered by appellant. That is without support in the record.
There is nothing before us which would justify a reversal.
Affirmed.