Opinion ID: 1842796
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Double costs.

Text: The defendant asserts that the briefs of the plaintiff have not complied with sec. 251.34 (5), Stats., in that the plaintiff's abridgment of the testimony is not sufficiently complete to allow consideration of the issues. The defendant found it necessary to print a supplemental appendix and asks that the appeal be dismissed without a hearing, or that double costs plus the cost of printing the supplemental appendix be imposed. It is apparent that we have declined to dismiss the appeal without a hearing. In Nothem v. Berenschot (1958), 3 Wis. 2d 585, 590, 89 N. W. 2d 289, this court stated the requirements governing the abridgment of testimony: . . . The appendix attached to appellant's brief is inadequate in failing to set forth material testimony tending to sustain the verdict. Rule 6 (5) (c) of this court requires that the appendix contain an abridgment of so much of the bill of exceptions as is necessary and material to a consideration of the questions involved, and contemplates that such abridgment shall contain not only the testimony favorable to appellant's contentions, but also that tending to support the verdict on the points in controversy. . . . Further, this court has held that the filing of a supplemental abridgment by the respondent does not relieve the appellant of his duty under the court rule. Martinson v. Brooks Equipment Leasing, Inc. (1967), 36 Wis. 2d 209, 152 N. W. 2d 849, rehearing denied, 36 Wis. 2d 209, 154 N. W. 2d 353. Finally, both Nothem and Martinson indicate that double costs may be awarded for such a violation, while Martin v. Martin (1970), 46 Wis. 2d 218, 174 N. W. 2d 468, indicates that affirmance without opinion is an appropriate remedy where the errors are numerous and substantial. A review of the testimony abridged by the defendant reflects that the scope of the omissions in the abridgment by the plaintiff were considerable. Where, as here, it is necessary for this court to determine whether the findings of the trial court were against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, the abridgment should present a fair, accurate and complete statement of the testimony. Much of the testimony omitted in the appendix of the plaintiff was the testimony relied upon by the trial court in reaching its decision. The defendant is awarded double costs plus the costs of printing the supplemental appendix. The plaintiff asks that the defendant's brief be stricken with reversal of the findings of the trial court or a new trial plus double costs. We find no merit to this motion, and it is denied. By the Court. Judgment affirmed with costs awarded to the respondent as provided in the opinion.