Court Opinion

ID: 7817159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:40:34.009232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:37.882981
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, Justice, concurring. Counsel for both sides appear to have overlooked that part of Rule 9 (d) which provides that when a map, plat, or other exhibit must be examined for a clear understanding of the testimony, the burden is on the appellant either to attach a reproduction of the exhibit to his abstract or to obtain from the court a waiver of that requirement. Here the briefs of both parties repeatedly direct our attention to certain exhibits, but they have not been reproduced. I’m happy to see the case being decided on its merits, but in candor I must say that without the exhibits I found the testimony incomprehensible. Hence this concurrence.-