Case Name: BILICH et ux. v. MATHE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-04-05
Citations: 149 La. 484
Docket Number: No. 23799
Parties: BILICH et ux. v. MATHE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 483–487

Head Matter:
(89 South. 628)
No. 23799.
BILICH et ux. v. MATHE.
(April 5, 1920.
On Motion to Eliminate Depositions from the Record, April 4, 1921. On the Merits, June 30, 1921. Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1921.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Appeal and error <&wkey;392 — Appeal not dismissed for inaccuracy in appeal bond.
In view of Act No. 112 of 1916, § 9, appeal will not be dismissed for any inaccuracy or error in the appeal bond or for insufficiency of security, where the defendant has not been put in default in the district court in the manner directed by the statute.
On Motion to Eliminate Depositions from the Record.
2. Appeal and error &wkey;*837(IO) — Depositions in record but not in evidence cannot be considered on appeal.
Depositions in the record on appeal not offered in evidence cannot be considered in deciding the ease upon its merits, and a motion to eliminate them will be allowed.
On the Merits.
3. Municipal corporations <&wkey;>706(6) — Evidence in action for death by being run over by automobile held to warrant dismissing the case.
In an action against an automobile driver for the death of plaintiff’s six year old boy by being run over, evidence held such as to warrant dismissing case.
Appeal from Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines; R Em-met Hingle, Judge.
Action by Andrew Bilich, Sr., and wife, against Seymour J. Mathe, for damages for the killing of their six year old- son by an automobile. From a judgment dismissing the suit, the plaintiffs appeal.
Motion to dismiss appeal overruled, motion to eliminate depositions from record allowed, and judgment affirmed.
George Sladovicli, of New Orleans, for appellants.
Oliver S. Livaudais, of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
O'NIELL, J.
The defendant has moved to dismiss this appeal for. irregularities in the appeal bond. He obtained, in the district court, a rule on appellate to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed; but the rule was not served upon appellant, nor was any further proceeding had in the matter. According to section 9 of Act 112 of 1916, an appeal should not be dismissed for any inaccuracy or error in the appeal bond, or for insufficiency of .the security, unless the appellant has been put in default, in the district court, in the manner directed by the statute: See Hurry v. Hurry, 144 La. 877, 81 South. 378.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
On Motion to Eliminate Depositions from the Record.
The defendant, appellee, has filed a motion praying that the depositions of Jacob Bilich, Philip J. Schoen, Anthony Bilich, Mrs. Anna Aiola, Mrs. Agnes Rittener and Josephine Aiola be eliminated from the transcript of appeal, and be disregarded by this court as evidence in the case, because the depositions, which were taken under commission to be used in evidence on behalf of plaintiff, were not in fa,et offered in evidence. The record discloses that the depositions were not offered in evidence; hence they cannot be considered by this court in deciding the ease upon its merits. See Wilkin-Hale State Bank v. Tucker (No. 24421) 148 La. 980, 88 South. 239, in which the opinion was handed down to-day.
Certain documents annexed to appellee's motion would show a very plausible reason why the depositions were not offered in evidence, if we could consider the documents as evidence before us. The only method by which we could get such documents before-us as evidence would be to remand the case for a trial of this motion. Such a proceeding is unnecessary, because the fact that the depositions were not offered in evidence is a sufficient reason for our eliminating and excluding them from the record.
The transcript is so arranged and bound that it would be quite difficult to take the-depositions out without mutilating the record. It will suffice for the clerk of this court to mark the depositions referred to so that the court will not forget that they are not to be considered as evidence in the case.
It is ordered that the depositions of the six witnesses referred to herein be eliminated and excluded from the transcript of appeal and be not considered as evidence in. the case.