DANIEL GAYEE, Appellant, v. GBALEE JEBLEE, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SINOE COUNTY. Argued March 18, 1969. Decided June 13, 1969. 1. A circuit court judge, under the Revised Rules for Circuit Courts, may, of his own volition, order a case stricken from the trial docket and the action dismissed when the plaintiff fails to appear, or is not prepared for trial, and no motion for a continuance has been filed by him. At the call of the case for trial, after two continuances appear to have been allowed to the plaintiff in the action, the plaintiff was not prepared to go to trial. Prior to the call of the case pursuant to notice of assignment, a motion to dismiss the action had been filed by defendant, but the motion was never entertained by the trial judge, who ordered the case stricken from the calendar and the action dismissed under Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of the Circuit Courts, relating to unprepared parties not moving for a continuance. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment on the theory that the defendant’s motion had been granted. Judgment affirmed. Clarence 0. Tuning for appellant. No appearance for appellee. MR. JUSTICE WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of the court. The above-entitled cause of action originated in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Sinoe County, by the issuance and service of a Writ of replevin. Defendant, having been served with the relevant process which was duly returned by the ministerial officer of said court, filed 291 292 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS his formal appearance, and within the statutory time filed his answer. The issues of law involved were ruled on by Judge Roderick N. Lewis on September 29, 1965, and the case ordered to trial. We observe two motions for continuance were filed by plaintiff. The first was dated May 18, 1965, and the other May 23, 1965. In each of the motions the plaintiff requested the court to continue the cause to the succeeding term of court. We have not seen in the record how the court disposed of either of the two motions. On June 3, 1966, a motion to dismiss the case was brought before Judge James W. Hunter, and was opposed. The ruling dismissing the case was excepted to and an appeal announced to this Court. Accordingly, plaintiffappellant met all of the statutory requirements in perfecting his appeal, which is before this Court based on a nine-count bill of exceptions. When this case was assigned and called for hearing appellee failed to appear, whereupon, in keeping with Rule IV, Part 6, of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, appellant’s counsel argued his brief based on his bill of exceptions and submitted. It is regrettable to observe that appellant’s counsel has a misconception of the ruling of the trial judge in dismissing the action under review, as appears from his bill of exceptions. It is obvious that the judge’s ruling in these proceedings was not based on the motion of defendant; instead, there being no motion for continuance filed for the consideration of the court, and the plaintiff not being ready to go to trial, the trial judge dismissed the case in keeping with Rule 7 of the Revised Rules governing Circuit Courts within this jurisdiction. Therefore, the ruling of the trial judge being fully justified as aforesaid, and the approved bill of exceptions LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 293 filed by appellant in these proceedings not having any bearing on the case at bar, the ruling of the trial judge is hereby confirmed and affirmed, with costs ruled against appellant. And it is hereby so ordered. Affirmed.