Case ID: ohio-law-abs_6/html/0003-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BOELSCHER v. BOELSCHER.
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
    No. 3127.
    Decided Oct. 3, 1927.
    First Publication of this Opinion.
    Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
    148. BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS — 1. Testimony, not in dispute, which is part of whole proceeding, should not be stricken from record.
    2. Court of Appeals empowered, by 11572-A GC., to correct errors in bills of exceptions.
    Motion to Correct Bill of Exceptions.
    Granted.
    John A. Scanlon, Cincinnati, for Plaintiff in error.
    Williams, Ragland, Dixon & Murphy, Cincinnati, for Defendant in error.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS.
    The action was one for divorce, brought by the plaintiff in error in the Court of Domestic Relations.
    The case wa's heard; defendant not appearing or answering. Plaintiff and some witnesses gave testimony at the hearing. No entry was placed upon the record concerning the conclusion of the trial court, but later the Court re-opened the case for further hearing, and upon final hearing, refused the divorce and dismissed the petition.
    Plaintiff, preparing her bill of exceptions, presented a transcript of the evidence taken at the first hearing, in addition to the proceedings later. Defendant in error, defendant below, appeared and filed objections to the bill of exceptions, and asked that the transcript of the evidence taken at the first hearing be stricken from the bill. The trial court granted the motion, and struck from the bill that evidence. The matter in controversy was contained on pages 39, 40 and 41 of the bill. Upon the granting of the motion by the trial court, counsel for defendant removed, from the bill, these pages, and the bill was signed by the trial court. The motion here is to have these pages restored.
   OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Our view of the law is that these pages, in view of the fact that the giving of the testimony therein recited is not in dispute, should not have been stricken. They were part of the whole proceeding, and should be in the record.

In our view, these circumstances bring the matter within the corrective provisions of 11572-A GC. empowering this Court to correct errors in bills of exceptions.

It is, therefore, ordered that these pages he restored to the bill of exceptions in this Court.

(Hamilton, PJ., and Mills, J., concur. Cush-ing, J., not participating.)