Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Rob. 380

Clark v. Laidlaw

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided May 15, 1843

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1843-05-15

moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the certificate of the Clerk of the court below, showed that the testimony of a witness examined on the trial had not been reduced to writing, and could not be included in the record ; there being no statement of facts, bill of exceptions or assignment of errors.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1879

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1843-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Martin, J.

¶1The plaintiffs and appellees discovered that the testimony of Bedford, a witness examined below, was not in the transcript; the appellant obtained a certiorari, on which the Clerk returned that the testimony had not been reduced to writing. The record shows that the judgment was given partly on the testimony of Bedford, which does not appear to have been transcribed, although the Clerk certified that he was sworn and examined. The Judge, however, has certified that the record contains, “ all the evidence adduced by the parties.” The plaintiffs, on this have demanded the dismissal of the appeal. Those who seek relief at our hands must take care to bring before us all the evidence given below. If they do not, we cannot review the judgment they complain of.

¶2Appeal dismissed.

/4/rob/380 · .json · Public domain