Burns v. Renaker Co.

WORKS, P. J.

This appeal is prosecuted under what is known as the alternative method, provided for by section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure and by several other sections which follow it. Section 953c provides, in part: “In filing briefs in said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto,

[140]

such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.’’ Rule VIII of the “Rules for Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal” contains the following: “Where the parts of the typewritten record relied upon on appeal are required to be printed in the briefs (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 953c et seq.), it shall be sufficient to state therein the substance of such record, parenthetically referring to the line and page of the typewritten transcript for verification ...”

The principal questions in the present ease are whether the evidence is sufficient to support certain findings of the trial court. In such a case we have the right to expect that the briefs will show us, either by quotation or by statement of substance, the evidence which supports or shows the lack of support of the assailed findings. Instead of this desideratum, let us observe what has been presented to us.

The offenses against statute and rule of court do not appear in the opening brief of appellants. These parties have inserted an appendix to their brief, and in it we find over thirteen pages of testimony, quoted directly from the typewritten record. Various portions "of this matter in the appendix are referred to in the argument which precedes it. Here appears, then, a satisfactory observance of statute and rule.

We are in deep waters, however, when we take up respondent’s brief. It contains no supplement or appendix, although, of course, this is not necessary, as matter from the record may properly be reproduced in the main body of a brief. But respondent does not even adopt this latter method. Counsel makes in the brief at least twenty-three statements in support of each of which citations of places in the record are appended. With the possible exception of four of these statements—and these four are somewhat in doubt—they all present general matter only, that is, they show no specific testimony, either by quotation or in substance, but state conclusions of the author of the brief. We shall now set down a few of these statements, without explaining what relation they bear to a decision of the cause on the merits, as no such explanation is at present necessary. One statement: “Leslie Renaker had full charge of the undertaking establishment.” In support of this con