Brown v. Young's Adm'r

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Brown v. Young's Adm'r

7 Ky. Op. 737, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 312

DecidedJune 18, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ky. Op. 737 (Brown v. Young's Adm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Young's Adm'r, 7 Ky. Op. 737, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 312 (Ky. Ct. App. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge LindsXy:

The amended reply which appellant complains he was not allowed to file, is not made a matter of record by bill of exceptions or otherwise. Neither are the instructions given, or refused, incorporated into the record. The deposition of Lawrence Young, which appellant insists was improperly read to the jury, is wholly omitted.

The testimony as taken down and written out by the shorthand reporter, is not identified. It is attested by the judge, but there is no caption showing the court, or the trial at which the testimony was given. Besides all this, when every word of testimony, properly or improperly before us, is considered, we can not say that the finding of the jury is not in accordance with the preponderance thereof.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge LindsXy:

The amended reply which appellant complains he was not allowed to file, is not made a matter of record by bill of exceptions or otherwise. Neither are the instructions given, or refused, incorporated into the record. The deposition of Lawrence Young, which appellant insists was improperly read to the jury, is wholly omitted.

The testimony as taken down and written out by the shorthand reporter, is not identified. It is attested by the judge, but there is no caption showing the court, or the trial at which the testimony was given. Besides all this, when every word of testimony, properly or improperly before us, is considered, we can not say that the finding of the jury is not in accordance with the preponderance thereof.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ky. Op. 737, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-youngs-admr-kyctapp-1874.