History
  • No items yet
midpage
Kleyla v. State ex rel. Hobbs
112 Ind. 146
Ind.
1887
Check Treatment
Elliott, J.

The appellant assigns for error that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. The motion, states as reasons for a new trial:

“ 1st. The finding of the court is contrary to law.
“ 2d. The finding of the court is contrary to the evidence.”

It is manifest that the questions sought to be presented can not be considered unless all the evidence can be regarded as in the record.

Appellee’s counsel press the point that as it is stated in the bill of exceptions that “ this was all the testimony given in the cause,” and as there is no statement that “ this was all the *147evidence given in the cause,” we can not consider the evidence as in the record. The authorities require us to yield to this contention. The word “ testimony ” is not synonymous with the word “ evidence.” Harvey v. Smith, 17 Ind. 272; Brickley v. Weghorn, 71 Ind. 497, and cases cited; Sessengut v. Posey, 67 Ind. 408.

Filed Oct. 13, 1887.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Kleyla v. State ex rel. Hobbs
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: Oct 13, 1887
Citation: 112 Ind. 146
Docket Number: No. 12,873
Court Abbreviation: Ind.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.