When a defendant, from the beginning, neglects his case on very insufficient grounds, whereby a default is rendered against him, and afterwards employs counsel to attend to the business who does not practice in the court, he is not entitled to the indulgence of the court, and shall not claim any because of the absence of his counsel.
PER CURIAM.
The affidavits show that there is no ground on which the Court would grant a new trial. The defendant Barfield neglected the case from the beginning, on very insufficient reasons, whereby a default was taken against him, and afterwards on the trial incurred the risk of a counsel's attendance who did not practice in the court, while he was told of others that would be in attendance. To award a new trial for the reasons here offered were to encourage inattention and promote litigation.
PER CURIAM. No error.