Case Name: Hockett v. Johnson et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1882-11
Citations: 87 Ind. 251
Docket Number: No. 9875
Parties: Hockett v. Johnson et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 251–251

Head Matter:
No. 9875.
Hockett v. Johnson et al.
Bill op Exceptions. — Evidence.—Statement.—Where a transcript of a bill of exceptions does not contain an item of written evidence referred to therein, its concluding statement that it contains all the evidence will be deemed untrue, and the bill will not enable the Supreme Court to decide that the finding was not sustained by the evidence, or that the damages were excessive.
Erom the Grant Circuit Court.
A. Steele and R. T. St. John, for appellant.
G. W. Harvey, for appellees.

Opinion:
Black, C.
The overruling of a motion for a new trial is the only supposed error assigned. The causes stated in the motion for a new trial were, that the finding was not sustained by the evidence; that it was contrary to the evidence; that it was contrary to law; and that the damages were excessive.
There is a bill of exceptions containing evidence which is said in the bill to have been all the evidence given in the •cause; but it affirmatively appears that this statement is not correct, for it is'recited in the bill that a certain record was introduced in evidence, but it is not contained in the- bill, and there is in a parenthesis a statement that the record in question was not on file, followed by the signature of the clerk.
The bill, therefore, can not be taken as containing all the -evidence, and without having before us all the evidence given in the action, we can not consider any of the causes stated in appellant's motion for a new trial. Ward v. Bateman, 34 Ind. 110; Hill v. Sutton, 47 Ind. 592; Morrow v. State, 48 Ind. 432; Hinkle v. Margerum, 50 Ind. 240; Millikan v. State, ex rel., 70 Ind. 310; Bowen v. Pollard, 71 Ind. 177; Powers v. Evans, 72 Ind. 23; Goben v. Goldsberry, 72 Ind. 44.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Per Curiam.
It is ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment be affirmed, at appellant's costs.
Petition for a rehearing overruled.