Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0437-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NYE v. WATT.
    Bill of exceptions — record—bad practice — a court of error will not look out of the record.
    A bill of exceptions should state what facts are proven, and not detail the testimony of each witness, unless the objection make it necessary.
    The practice of swelling the records by copying the mere formal part of papers, or copying depositions,is to be reprobated; and in a proper case, the court will order the attorney or clerk to pay the costs.
    Where the record shows other evidence to have been given which is not set out, the court of error cannot tell what it was, and reverse on account of the error of the court below, in ordering a non suit; it will not go beyond the record.
    Error to the Common Pleas. Nye declared below upon a contract between him and Watt, that if Nye would complete the erection of a bridge he was then building, Watt would furnish the plank. The plaintiff assigns for breach, that he performed the work, and Watt did not furnish the plank. Plea non assumpsit.
    The bill of exceptions in the record states; that on the trial, certain witnesses testified to certain matters, and sets out at length copies of sundry depositions, even to the caption, certificate and attestation; and shows that the defendant moved for a non suit, which the court ordered, being of opinion the plaintiff had not sustained his action by his evidence.
   By the Court.

If the bill of exceptions showed that the testimony copied was all the evidence offered at the trial, we might regard it, even in the way stated, though it would be more correct to state what facts were proven, and not state what a witness declares, unless the objection be to the improper admission of irrelevant testimony. The practice of swelling records, by copying the caption and attestation of depositions, unless upon some question touching the authentication copied, cannot be too strongly reprobated, and in a proper case, we would not hesitate to order the clerk recording, or the attorney ordering it, to pay the expense. The record here shows, that other evidence was given, besides what is set out. It seems to us very probable, that the evidence should have gone to the jury; but we are not advised of that by inspecting the record. There is cause to suspect that the court erred in ordering a non suit, but as we cannot go beyond the record, we cannot affirm that they erred.

The judgment is affirmed.