Case Name: L. M. BUMPAS, Respondent, v. CRAWFORD MOORE and SELMER LOWER, Appellants
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1918-06-20
Citations: 31 Idaho 668
Docket Number: 
Parties: L. M. BUMPAS, Respondent, v. CRAWFORD MOORE and SELMER LOWER, Appellants.
Judges: Budge, C. J., and Rice, J., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 668–675

Head Matter:
(June 20, 1918.)
L. M. BUMPAS, Respondent, v. CRAWFORD MOORE and SELMER LOWER, Appellants.
[175 Pac. 339.]
Record on Appeal — New Trial — Orders op Court Deemed Excepted to — When not Renewable on Appeal.
1. Where the reeord on appeal contains a transcript of evidence which is not settled and certified by the trial judge, his order overruling a motion for a new trial, based in part on the minutes of the court, cannot be reviewed, nor can such transcript be considered on appeal from the judgment.
2. Orders of the court which are not, by statute, made a part of the judgment-roll or of the papers required to be furnished on appeal, cannot be reviewed unless they are incorporated in a bill of exceptions or its equivalent.
3. In the absence of a certificate signed by the trial judge, clerk or attorneys showing what papers, records and files were used and considered by the court on the hearing of a contested motion, an order disposing of such motion cannot be reviewed upon appeal.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Chas. P. McCarthy, Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, from which, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, this appeal is taken.
Affirmed.
Cavanah & Blake and Perky & Brinck, for Appellants.
Counsel for the plaintiff should not have been permitted, over the objection of counsel for the defendants, to ask the defendants’ witnesses impeaching questions on cross-examination when it appeared that such impeaching questions referred-to testimony given at a former trial of the cause, which testimony was in writing. (Sec. 6083, Rev. Codes; Boeck v. Boeck, 29 Ida. 639, 161 Pac. 576; Keane v. Pittsburg Lead Min. Co., 17 Ida. 17, 105 Pac. 60; People v. Lambert, 120 Cal. 170, 52 Pae. 307; People v. Lee Chuck, 78 Cal. 317, 20 Pac. 719; People v. Ching Hing Chang, 74 Cal. 389, 16 Pac. 201; People v. Bartley, 12 Cal. App. 773, 108 Pac. 868; Lanigan v. Neelly, 4 Cal. App. 760, 89 Pac. 441; State v. Martin, 47 Or. 282, 8 Ann. Cas. 769, 83 Pac. 849; Hilbert v. Spokane Inter. B. B. Co., 20 Ida. 54,116 Pae. 1116; Osborn v. Cary, 24 Ida. 158, 167, 132 Pae. 967; People v. Lopez, 21 Cal. App. 188, 131 Pae. 105; Tonseth v. Portland By., L. & P. Co., 70 Or. 341, 141 Pac. 868; Melzner v. Chicago, M. & St. P. B. Co., 51 Mont. 487, 153 Pac. 1019.)
L. W. Tennyson and Frawley & Koelsch, for Respondent.
“It is a common practice and no violation of the rule to ask a witness whether he testified to a given statement at another trial, without producing the record of such trial.” (5 Jones’ Commentaries on Evidence, sec. 847, pp. 220, 221; Taylor v. State, 110 Ga. 150, 35 S. E. 161; Toplitz v. Hedden, 146 U. S. 252, 13 Sup. Ct. 70, 36 L.,ed. 961.)

Opinion:
MORGAN, J.
This record on appeal purports to contain a transcript of the evidence taken at the trial, which does not appear to have been settled or certified by the trial judge, as required by sec. 4443, Rev. Codes, as amended by sec. 4, chap. 118, Sess. Laws 1911, p. 378, and sec. 4434, Rev. Codes, as amended by chap. 119, Sess. Laws 1911, p. 379, therefore, the order overruling the motion for a new trial, which was based, in part, upon the minutes of the court, cannot be reviewed. This leaves nothing , for us to consider, except the judgment-roll on appeal from the judgment. (Ray v. Ray, 1 Ida. 705; Grisinger v. Hubbard, 21 Ida. 469, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 87, 122 Pac. 853; Strand v. Crooked River Min. Co., 23 Ida. 577, 131 Pac. 5; Wells v. Culp, 30 Ida. 438, 166 Pac. 218.)
The record purports to contain a copy of a motion for, and of objections to, a continuance of the trial, together with copies of certain affidavits in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and of the minutes of the court showing the motion was granted. This is a nonappealable order and is assigned as error. The matter, however, is not before this court. The papers mentioned are not part of the judgment-roll (Rev. Codes, sec. 4456, as amended by Sess. ,Laws 1909, p. 76); neither are they part of the papers required to be furnished on appeal (Rev. Codes, sec. 4818, as , amended by Sess. Laws 1911, chap. 117, p. 375) ; nor have they been incorporated in a bill of exceptions, nor in a properly settled and certified record on appeal from an order denying the motion for a new trial as required by sees. 4443 and 4434, supra. (Ray v. Ray, supra; Ramsay v. Hart, 1 Ida. 423; Williams v. Boise Basin Min. Co., 11 Ida. 233, 81 Pac. 646; Perkins v. Loux (on rehearing), 14 Ida. 614, 95 Pac. 696; Bissing v. Bissing, 19 Ida. 777, 115 Pac. 827.)
There is no certificate in the transcript showing what papers, records or files were used and considered by the court on the hearing of either the motion for a continuance or for a new trial as required by sec. 4821, Rev. Codes and by Rule 24 of the rules of this court. (153 Pac. xi.) In the absence of such a certificate the orders complained of could not be reviewed, even if the other reason, above stated, did not exist. (Dudacek v. Vaught, 28 Ida. 442, 154 Pac. 995; Walsh v. Niess, 30 Ida. 325, 164 Pac. 528; Glenn v. Aultnum & Taylor M. Co., 30 Ida. 719, 727, 167 Pac. 1163.)
(October 5, 1918.)
Witnesses — Impeaching Questions.
4. Although an impeaching question propounded to a witness is improper, because the statements inquired about are in writing and have not been shown to him as required by statute, if his answer thereto is not contradicted, but the effort to impeach him is abandoned, no prejudicial error results from overruling an objection to the question.
[As to impeaching witnesses, see note in 14 Am. St. 157.]
We find no error in the judgment-roll which is the only portion of the record properly before us.
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondent.
Budge, C. J., and Rice, J., concur.