Gainski v. Bialka

Indiana Court of Appeals

Gainski v. Bialka

183 N.E. 323, 95 Ind. App. 264, 1932 Ind. App. LEXIS 104

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 1932

DocketNo. 14,634.

StatusPublished

This text of 183 N.E. 323 (Gainski v. Bialka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gainski v. Bialka, 183 N.E. 323, 95 Ind. App. 264, 1932 Ind. App. LEXIS 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Neal, J.

— This action was instituted by Walter Gain-ski, a minor, against Walter Bialka,- a minor. The complaint in one paragraph alleged that defendant (appellee herein) committed an assault and battery upon plaintiff (appellant herein), inflicting an injury. The guardian ad litem and appellee presented a demurrer to the complaint which was overruled. The guardian ad litem filed answers in two paragraphs: (1) General denial; (2) special answers. Appellant filed reply in general denial *265 to the second paragraph of answer. Trial by jury, and verdict for defendant. Motion for new trial was overruled, hence this appeal. Errors assigned: (1) Verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) verdict contrary to law; and (3) separate error in the refusal of the court to give each of the requested instructions tendered by appellant and separate error of the court in giving each of the instructions tendered by appellee as modified by the court.

An examination of appellant’s brief discloses that he has not complied with the fifth division of Rule 22 of the Supreme and Appellate Court in that: (1) He has given what purports to be a concise statement of the evidence, but nowhere refers to the pages and the line of the transcript where the same may be found; (2) error is attempted to be predicated in the giving and the refusal to give certain instructions but the statement of the record wholly fails to recite the instructions given; (3) the points are abstract and are not directed to any error relied upon for reversal. An examination of that portion of appellant’s brief entitled “argument” discloses that what purports to be instructions given and refused are recited, but that will not be sufficient to present the question. Del-Mar Garage, Inc., v. Boden (1932), post 317, 179 N. E. 729; Howenstein v. Sellars (1932), ante 150, 181 N. E. 46. It necessarily follows that no question is presented.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Neal, J.

— This action was instituted by Walter Gain-ski, a minor, against Walter Bialka,- a minor. The complaint in one paragraph alleged that defendant (appellee herein) committed an assault and battery upon plaintiff (appellant herein), inflicting an injury. The guardian ad litem and appellee presented a demurrer to the complaint which was overruled. The guardian ad litem filed answers in two paragraphs: (1) General denial; (2) special answers. Appellant filed reply in general denial *265 to the second paragraph of answer. Trial by jury, and verdict for defendant. Motion for new trial was overruled, hence this appeal. Errors assigned: (1) Verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) verdict contrary to law; and (3) separate error in the refusal of the court to give each of the requested instructions tendered by appellant and separate error of the court in giving each of the instructions tendered by appellee as modified by the court.

An examination of appellant’s brief discloses that he has not complied with the fifth division of Rule 22 of the Supreme and Appellate Court in that: (1) He has given what purports to be a concise statement of the evidence, but nowhere refers to the pages and the line of the transcript where the same may be found; (2) error is attempted to be predicated in the giving and the refusal to give certain instructions but the statement of the record wholly fails to recite the instructions given; (3) the points are abstract and are not directed to any error relied upon for reversal. An examination of that portion of appellant’s brief entitled “argument” discloses that what purports to be instructions given and refused are recited, but that will not be sufficient to present the question. Del-Mar Garage, Inc., v. Boden (1932), post 317, 179 N. E. 729; Howenstein v. Sellars (1932), ante 150, 181 N. E. 46. It necessarily follows that no question is presented.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.E. 323, 95 Ind. App. 264, 1932 Ind. App. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gainski-v-bialka-indctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack