Case Name: King et al., respondents, v. Sullivan, appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1871-01
Citations: 1 Mont. 282
Docket Number: 
Parties: King et al., respondents, v. Sullivan, appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
King et al., respondents, v. Sullivan, appellant.
Practice — consideration of statement — exceptions. This court will not consider a statement that has not been duly settled and certified, or exceptions that have not been duly presented and signed according to the statute.
Practice — review of exceptions to admission of evidence. An exception to the admission of evidence upon a cross-examination wiU not be examined if all the evidence is not before the court.
Appeal from the Third District, Lewis and Clarice County.
The arguments of counsel and statement of facts are not reported, because the court did not review them. The cause was tried in the district court before Symes, J.
Wooleolk & Toole, for appellant.
Chumasero & Chadwick, for respondents.

Opinion:
Warren, C. J.
In this case the appeal is from an order overruling defendant's motion for a new trial, and from the judgment entered on the verdict of the jury for plaintiffs. The transcript contains what purports to be the evidence in the case, and also instructions given and refused, and exceptions taken at the trial below. At the conclusion of appellant' s motion for a new trial, which sets forth the grounds of the motion, appears the words, "statement settled as correct," but there is no certificate of settlement of any statement signed by the attorneys of the parties or by the judge below, nor does it appear what statement is referred to by these words. This court can consider nothing which is not part of the judgment-roll, unless' it be presented by exceptions duly preserved and signed, or by statement settled and certified as required by the statute. An exception to the admission of some evidence, upon cross-examination of the defendant, is properly preserved by the signature of the judge, but, as the whole evidence is not before us, we cannot presume the ruling to be erroneous or that the appellant was prejudiced by it.
The judgment-roll does not show the errors assigned, and the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.