Case Title: State v. Calkins

Citation: 96 A.2d 815

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1953-05-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
96 A.2d 815 (1953) STATE v. CALKINS. No. 1038. Supreme Court of Vermont. May 5, 1953. James T. Haugh, Rutland, for plaintiff. Philip M. M. Phelps, Fair Haven, for defendant. Before SHERBURNE, C. J., and JEFFORDS, CLEARY, ADAMS and CUSHING, JJ. SHERBURNE, Chief Justice. The respondent has been found guilty of a violation of an ordinance of the city of Rutland. He has attempted to brief two questions. Since his brief on these questions is very short we quote it in full: Briefs shall contain a clear statement of the points to be discussed, with a reference to the pages of the record and the authorities relied on in support of each point. Supreme Court Rule 8, § 3. Nothing is presented for our determination unless the excepting party refers us to the specific exception upon which he relies and sets it forth in his brief. Bonneau v. Russell, 117 Vt. 134, 138, 85 A. 569; Turner v. Bragg, 113 Vt. 393, 403, 35 A.2d 356; Vermont Evaporator Co. v. Taft, 108 Vt. 209, 212, 184 A. 704; West Rutland Trust Co. v. Houston, 104 Vt. 204, 209, 158 A. 69, 80 A.L.R. 664; Barclay v. Wetmore & Morse Granite Co., 94 Vt. 227, 234, 110 A. 1. A general or abstract statement of law or fact without specific application to some exception will not be considered. 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1324, p. 1898. The respondent's brief is inadequate in all three of these respects. Exceptions overruled, and cause remanded for sentence.