We have examined the record in light of the appellate presentment and find no harmful or reversible error. We specifically reject appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in refusing to ■ admit the deposition of Tatsuo Rushing, appellees’ witness, for impeachment purposes for the reason that appellant did not properly lay a predicate in accordance with Hancock v. *829McDonald, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 56. Also see 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, §§ 240-248.

Affirmed.