Habbeshaw v. Habbeshaw

HENRIOD, Chief Justice.

Appeal from a “judgment” (which in reality only was an order denying a motion *296for a new trial). Affirmed with costs to respondent.

This appeal is abortive, being from the denial of a motion for a new trial.1

Nonetheless, parenthetically and dictum-wise, we are at a loss to know why, after the full hearings, testimony, findings, conclusions and judgment in which Mrs. Hab-beshaw appeared to have exhausted her complaints, financial and physical, she should ask for a new trial under Rule 59(a) (4), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. .There appears to be no evidence that could…