Case Name: Kelley vs. The Town of Fond du Lac
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1874-06
Citations: 36 Wis. 307
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kelley vs. The Town of Fond du Lac.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Kelley vs. The Town of Fond du Lac.
Practice in Supreme Oowrt.
Where the printed abstract of the case shows no error, and the appellant’s counsel has not called the attention of this court to any error appearing in the written bill of exceptions (which is voluminous) — there being no oral argument or brief for the respondent,— the court must affirm the judgment, without itself searching the record for errors.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Fond du Lac County.
Action for damages caused by a defect in a highway of the defendant town. Plaintiff had a verdict, and judgment thereon ; and defendant appealed from the judgment.
Priest & Carter, for respondent.

Opinion:
Lyon, J.
This case was here on a former occasion, and a sufficient statement of facts will be found in the report thereof. 31 Wis., 179. There is in the complaint, however, another cause of action, not mentioned in the report, for the loss of another horse by the plaintiff in 1867, by reason of an alleged defect in another highway in the defendant town. We reversed the former judgment (which was for the plaintiff), because of certain erroneous rulings on objections to testimony. The cause has been again tried with a like result, and the de' fendant has again appealed.
A printed abstract of the case has been furnished, but we have no argument or brief on behalf of the defendant. The abstract contains no exceptions to the rulings of the court on objections to testimony, and hence we conclude that no such exceptions are relied on to reverse the judgment. This only leaves for consideration the instructions given to the jury, and those proposed by the defendant and refused. The former are substantially the same which were given on the former trial, and approved by this court on the former appeal. Of the latter, all which the printed abstract shows were material to the case, were given in the general charge.
The bill of exceptions is very voluminous, and we do not deem it our dut}*- to search through it for errors not apparent in such abstract, and which counsel have not taken the trouble to point out to us.
By the Court. —Judgment affirmed.