Bozegian v. Bakirjian

PLUMMER, J.

So far as this appeal is concerned, it affects only the plaintiff and the defendant Egavian.

The appeal by the plaintiff is from a judgment entered in favor of the defendant Egavian, in an action prosecuted by the plaintiff to recover the sum of $25,350 damages alleged to have been suffered at the hands of the defendant Egavian.

The record discloses that just prior to the alleged act which occasioned the injury to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant Bakirjian had been engaged in an altercation and fight in a room on the second floor of a building known as 543 South Los Angeles Street, in the city of Los Angeles. The complaint in this action sets forth that shortly after this occurrence, the plaintiff left the room mentioned, went down the stairway of the building to the sidewalk in front thereof; that shortly thereafter, the defendant Bakirjian came down the stairway to where the plaintiff was standing and assaulted him with a knife; that at the time of the assault the defendants Egavian and Serailian seized the plaintiff in such a manner as to hold both

[370]

his arms, preventing him defending himself, and permitting the defendant Bakirjian to strike the plaintiff in the face, so injuring the plaintiff that the plaintiff lost the sight of one eye.

The answer of the defendant Egavian denies participation in the acts alleged by the plaintiff, sets forth a number of denials upon information and belief, and then directly denies that he, the defendant Egavian, was guilty of any of the acts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint. The answer also denies that the defendant Serailian participated in any of the acts. It would appear, however, that the defendant Serailian permitted default to be entered against him.

Upon this appeal two grounds of error are alleged: 1. That the court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to strike out the answer of the defendant Egavian; and 2. That the findings of the trial court are not supported by the testimony. The appellant, in support of his contention that the court erred in denying his motion to strike out the answer of the defendant Egavian, characterizes the pleading of the defendant in the following words: ‘ ‘ The answer is a monument of contradictions, conjunetural denials, denials loaded with negative pregnants, denials not within the scope or knowledge of defendant, denials which are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial; denials not made with good faith; denials made wholly in disregard of the truth.” A reading of the answer filed by the defendant Egavian ■leads to the conclusion that plaintiff’s characterization thereof is not without some merit. Many denials contained in the answer appear to have been made without much consideration having been given to the verification which appears at the conclusion of the pleading. However applicable the characterization of the plaintiff, nothing is presented to this court upon which we can base a conclusion that the ruling of the trial court in denying the appellant’s motion to strike out the answer of the defendant Egavian, constitutes any cause for reversal. Irrespective of many of the denials in the answer which appear to have no proper place therein, there are portions in the answer constituting proper denials of the plaintiff’s allegations. Section 453 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads: “Sham and irrelevant answers, and irrelevant and redundant matter inserted in a pleading may be stricken out, upon such terms as the court