Case Name: ALBRECHT et al. v. LIGNOSKI
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-12-04
Citations: 151 S.W. 886
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALBRECHT et al. v. LIGNOSKI.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 151
Pages: 886–887

Head Matter:
ALBRECHT et al. v. LIGNOSKI.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
Dec. 4, 1912.)
Appeal and Error (§ 560 ) — Statement of Facts — Preparation—Form.
Where a statement of facts consisting of 59 pages, 6 of which contained documentary evidence, and of the remaining 53 over 30 contained questions and answers, and about 20 consisted entirely of questions and answers, objections and rulings, apparently copied from the stenographer’s transcript, two pages being taken up by a single controversy between counsel with reference to the admissibility of certain evidence, interspersed with questions and remarks by the court, instead of the whole being reduced to a distinct statement in narrative form, it was a violation of district court rules 72-78 (142 S. W. xxii) and Acts 32d Leg. c. 119, § 6, and was subject to a motion to-strike.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2490-2493; Dec. Dig. § 560. ]
Appeal from District Court, Dimmit County; J. F. Mullally, Judge.
Action between C. A. Albrecht and others and Charles Lignoski. From a judgment in favor of Lignoski, Albrecht and others ap peal. On motion to strike the statement of faets.
Granted.
Wm„ H. Davis, ot Crystal City, Colon Schott, of Cincinnati, Vandervoort & Johnson, of Carrizo Springs, and Magus Smith, of Pearsall, fcr appellants.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
MOURSUND, J.
Pursuant to appellee's motion to strike out the statement of faets filed in this cause, we have examined the same, and find that it does not comply with the rules, in that much of it consists of questions and answers, interspersed with objections by counsel and rulings by the court. About 6 pages contain documentary evidence. Out of the remaining 53 pages, over 30 contain questions and answers, and about 20 consist entirely of questions and answers, objections and rulings, apparently copied from the stenographer's transcript. About 2 pages are entirely taken up by a single controversy between counsel in regard to the admissibility of certain evidence, interspersed with questions and remarks by the court. We cannot agree with appellants' contention that questions and answers were only copied when necessary to an understanding of the testimony of the witnesses. In our- opinion, practically all the questions and answers could have been reduced to a succinct statement in narrative form.
We conclude that the rules have been flagrantly violated in the preparation of this statement of facts, and that it is our duty to grant the motion to strike same from the record. Rules 72 to 78 of the district court (142 S. W. xxii); Acts 32d Leg. c. 119, § 6; Brown v. Vizcaya, 54 S. W. 636; Caswell v. Hopson, 43 S. W. 549; Wentworth v. King, 49 S. W. 696; Heidenheimer v. Tannenbaum, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 567, 56 S. W. 776; Albers v. Roberts, 150 S. W. 596.
Motion granted.