Best v. Martin

FRICKE, J.,

pro

tem.

Appellant’s opening brief wholly fails to comply with that portion of rule VIII of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, which requires that “the briefs must present each point separately, under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented”. This court has repeatedly called attention to the provisions of this rule and the penalties involved for its violation. (See

Barnes

v.

Cocke,

99 Cal. App. 700 [279 Pac. 190], wherein appellant’s brief was stricken from the files;

Withers

v.

Southern Pac. Co.,

101 Cal. App. 373 [281 Pac. 518], wherein the judgment was affirmed because of appellant’s failure to comply with the rule;

People

v.

Yaroslawsky,

110 Cal. App. 175 [293 Pac. 815], wherein the

[246]

court calls attention to the propriety of dismissing an appeal for the same violation of the rule as is presented in the case at bar;

Hawkins

v.

Doolittle,

113 Cal. App. 619 [298 Pac. 862],

Haverty Co.

v.

Pacific Indemnity Co.,

(Cal. App.) 67 Cal. App. Dec. 268 [4 Pac. (2d) 214], and

Culver City Lime Co.

v.