114 [272 Randall Edward FAIR, a Minor by and through his natural father and best friend, and Zane FAIR, Individually v. Clarence E. DUNCAN 80-258 612 S.W. 2d 123 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered March 2, 1981 APPEAL & ERROR - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 9( E X 2) OF APPELIATE PROCEDURE - AFFIRMANCE ON APPEAL. - Where appellant's brief contains nothing in the way of an abstract other than pleadings and he has cited no authority in support of the alleged errors, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed due to appellant's failure to comply with Rule 9(eX2), Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Ark. Stat Ann. Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979). Appeal from Independence Circuit Court, Leroy Blan-kenship, Judge; affirmed. Zane Fair, pro se. No brief for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant brought suit below for personal injuries to his minor son and property damage to a motorcycle belonging to appellant, as the result of a motor vehicle collision between appellant's son and the appellee on August 28, 1975. A unanimous jury verdict in favor of defendant-appellee was returned and appellant appeals on seven assignments of error. Appellant's brief contains nothing in the way of an abstract other than pleadings and he has cited no authority in support of the alleged errors. It would be impossible to give intelligent consideration to any of appellant's points of error on the basis of appellant's brief. We therefore affirm due to failure to comply with Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Umholtz v. Allen, 254 Ark. 722, 495 S.W. 2d
874 (1973); Dickson v. Harpole, 238 Ark. 775, 384 S.W. 2d 472 (1964). Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.