As the instructions complained of were not set forth in the argument portion of Defendant-Appellant's brief, as required by Rule 84.04(e), the alleged instruction error was not preserved for appellate review. Twin Bridges Const. Co., Inc. v. Ferner, 700 S.W.2d 534, 537 (Mo.App. 1985); Sewell v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 597 S.W.2d 284, 290 (Mo.App. 1980). We proceed then to whether a submissible case of fraud was made.
A gratuitous examination of Instruction D in light of the record discloses no prejudicial error. Defendants' second point has no merit. Sewell v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 597 S.W.2d 284, 290[4] (Mo.App. 1980). The judgment is affirmed.