Paris v. Raynor (1888) · DecisionDepot

Paris v. Raynor

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

California Supreme Court Jun 22, 1888 No. No. 12538Published

Before: Paterson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment and order because the statement on motion for a new trial failed to specify insufficiency of evidence, lacked merit in its claims of error, and failed to incorporate necessary evidence or trial records.

Issues

Whether the statement on motion for a new trial sufficiently specified errors or insufficiency of evidence.
Whether the bill of particulars and instructions were properly part of the judgment roll or statement.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statement on motion for a new trial contains no specifications of insufficiency of the evidence.”

“A bill of particulars is no part of the judgment roll, neither are the instructions, and they are not incorporated into the statement herein.”

“Judgment and order affirmed.”

Synopsis

New Trial—Statement — Specifications of Error—Exceptions.— Specifications of error in a statement on motion for new trial will not be regarded where no objection or exception was entered or reserved.

Id. — Evidence in Statement. — When the statement on motion for new trial does not purport to contain all the evidence, and does not show, except by inference, that anything related in the statement occurred at the trial, or that any witness was sworn, it cannot be regarded, and the order refusing a new trial will be affirmed.

Id. — Judgment Roll—Bill of Particulars—Instructions. — Neither a bill of particulars nor instructions of the court are any part of the judgment roll, nor will they be considered on appeal from an order refusing a new trial, if not incorporated in the statement.

Paterson, J. The statement on motion for a new trial contains no specifications of insufficiency of the evidence. It does specify thirty-five errors alleged to have been committed by the court during the trial of the cause. The examination of these specifications reveals the fact that about thirty of them are without objection or exception entered or reserved; and there is no merit in the others. A bill of particulars is no part of the judgment roll, neither are the instructions, and they are not incorporated into the statement herein. The statement does not purport to contain all the evidence. In fact, it cannot be said that it contains any evidence. It does not show, except by inference, that anything related in the statement occurred at the trial, or that any witness was sworn.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Searls, 0. J., McFarland, J., Sharpstein, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.

Paris v. Raynor

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief