Case ID: pr_34/html/0752-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Aldrey", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosa Blanca Martínez, represented by her mother, Isabel Martinez, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Juan Asencio Segarra, Acisclo Asencio Segarra, Fernando Asencio Segarra and Carmen Camacho Colón, Defendants and Appellants.
    No. 3810.
    Argued December 14, 1925.
    Decided December 16, 1925.
    Appeal — Delay—Transcript op Evidence. — As the facts in this case show that the delay in approving the transcript of the evidence for the purpose of the appeal was due to the not unwarranted belief of the appellants that the judge who presided at the trial and had been suspended in office would return, rather than to a voluntary abandonment and delay in perfecting their appeal, the motion for dismissal was overruled.
    Motion for dismissal by the appellee.
    
      Overruled-.
    
    
      Alemañy & Ramírez, Nazario & García Méndez for the appellants-
    , R. del Toro Soler for the appellee.
   Mr. Justice Aldrey

delivered the opinion of the court.

The transcript of the evidence having been prepared by the stenographer on June 17, 1925, the 24th of August was set for its approval by the judge who presided at the trial, but the judge having been suspended in office, the transcript was not approved on thát day, and, as appears from an affidavit of the attorney for the appellants, he thereafter requested the cleric to suggest to the judge that a day be •set for the approval of the transcript of the evidence in the expectancy that the judge would return, but the judge did not return and was appointed to another district, whereupon the transcript was sent him and approved by him on the 9th of the month of December.

When the dismissal of this appeal was moved for the approval of the transcript of the evidence for the appeal was pending, and in view of the facts stated we reach the conclusion that the delay in approving it was due to the not unwarranted belief of the appellants that the judge would return, rather than to a voluntary abandonment and delay in prosecuting the appeal, for which reason the motion is. overruled.

Mr. Justice Wolf took no part in the decision of this case.