In Re Wells (1918) · DecisionDepot

In Re Wells

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jan 10, 1918 No. Crim. No. 336.Published

Before: THE COURT. —

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted in part and denied in part a motion to strike testimony from a referee's transcript, ruling that certain evidence was inadmissible hearsay and that the court would not search the record for exhibits not properly identified by counsel.

Issues

Whether specific portions of testimony taken before a referee should be stricken from the record.
Whether a statement from a prior trial record is admissible as evidence in the current proceeding.
Whether the court is obligated to locate exhibits in a transcript when counsel fails to provide specific citations.

Disposition. Motion granted in part and denied in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The general ground upon which we base the order striking out the said statement is that it is hearsay.”

“The motion to strike out petitioner’s Exhibit “D” is denied, for the reason that the written motion fails to point out where the said exhibit may be found in the transcript.”

Synopsis

MOTION to strike out portions of testimony taken before a referee in a proceeding opposing an application to practice law.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

THE COURT.

Counsel for respondent have filed a motion to strike out certain portions of the testimony taken before the referee named, designated and appointed by the court to take testimony in this proceeding. It was understood and agreed by and,between counsel on both sides that this motion should be disposed of before briefs addressed to the merits are filed. The portions of the testimony which respondent asks be stricken out are specified in the written motion, and, having considered the same, we now state the

[803]

conclusions arrived at. The grounds of the allowance of the motion as to certain testimony are those stated by respondent in his written application to strike out. Where the motion is denied it is because the reasons stated for striking out are not legally tenable as to those portions of the testimony.

1. The motion as to all the testimony of the witnesses, George W. Minter and G. W. Stevens, is granted.

2. The motion as to the testimony of the witness, R. Y. Williams, designated as subdivisions a, b, and c in the written motion, is granted.

3. The testimony of the witness, W. H. Thomas, designated as subdivisions a, b, c, and d in said written motion, is stricken out.

4. The motion to strike out petitioner’s Exhibit “D” is denied, for the reason that the written motion fails to point out where the said exhibit may be found in the transcript. The index to the reporter’s transcript contains no reference to the several exhibits, and it is not the duty of this court to search that voluminous document to find the exhibit, counsel themselves not having taken the pains to designate the particular'part of the transcript in which it may be found.

5. The motion to strike out those portions of the testimony of the witness, Clyde Bishop, designated as subdivisions a, b, c, i, m, n, o, and s, is granted. The motion as to those portions designated as subdivisions d, e, f, g, h, j, k, 1, p, q, r, and t is denied.

6. The motion to strike out petitioner’s Exhibit “E” is ■ denied for the reason given above for the ruling as to petitioner’s Exhibit “D.”

In Re Wells

AI Brief

Synopsis

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief