Case ID: ill_94/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dickey, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Garrick et al. v. Angie P. Chamberlain.
    
      Ottawa, March Term, 1880.
    Transcript of record—matters in evidence not embodied in the bill of exceptions. Where a bill of exceptions makes reference to certain matters as having been given in evidence, and directs, in parenthesis: (“Here insert” certain specified sections of the statute of another State), it is proper for the clerk, in making up a transcript of the record, to incorporate therein the matter so designated.
    This is an appeal from an Appellate court, the original transcript from the trial court being filed in this court. The appellants move the court to strike out of the record certain portions thereof which the clerk of the trial court has certified were read in evidence therein, consisting of certain sections from the statute book of the State of Ohio, with no warrant therefor other than a direction in the original bill of exceptions, as follows: “(Here insert §§ -, Swan’s Stat. O. 1854.)”
   Dickey, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Appellate Court. Motion is made here, on suggestions in the record, to expunge from the transcript certain matters alleged not to be properly a part of the record. Part of the matter consisted of a copy of the Statutes of Ohio, and the judge who tried the case says that such statutes were offered and admitted as follows, and then in parenthesis: (“Here insert in the original bill of exceptions”), but they are not in here. They are not in the original bill of exceptions; they are transcribed in full in the record. That has been the practice for more than forty years, where bills of exceptions refer to matters which can be identified. We see nothing wrong about it. The motion must be denied.

Motion denied.