Hawkins v. New Orleans Printing & Publishing Co.

29 La. Ann. 134
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMarch 15, 1877
DocketNo. 4847
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 29 La. Ann. 134 (Hawkins v. New Orleans Printing & Publishing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hawkins v. New Orleans Printing & Publishing Co., 29 La. Ann. 134 (La. 1877).

Opinions

On Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Taliaeerro, J.

The grounds on which the appellee mainly relies in support of his motion to dismiss the appeal in this case'are that the-transcript does not contain a true record of the proceedings had on the-[135]*135trial of tlio case in the court below, but on the contrary that it is erased, interlined, and mutilated in various places referred to by pages in the transcript; that these defects in the transcript are imputable solely to the appellant.

An attentive examination of the parts" of the record containing these alleged erasures, interlineations, and mutilations does not convince us that the transcript is not a true and correct copy of the original record of the proceedings had in the case on its trial in the court below. Two certificates of the clerk and his affidavit besides attest its correctness. It seems that ex industria the clerk has aimed to present an exact fac simile, a photograph, of the record, which in some of its parts presents, on that account, an anomalous appearance.

And we will here remark that the clerk, in making out the transcript in this manner, has made a departure from the established usage which has nothing to commend it as an improvement and nothing to render its adoption desirable. We, however, assume that this transcript represents correctly the alterations, erasures, interlineations, etc., as they appear in the original. There is nothing that we find to induce the belief that the original record has been altered, or that the transcript is not a correct copy of it.

It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss be overruled.

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

Related

State v. Wisham
371 So. 2d 1151 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1979)
State v. Marchand
362 So. 2d 1090 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1978)
State v. Ledet
298 So. 2d 761 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
Madison v. Bolton
102 So. 2d 433 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1958)
Grosjean v. Valloft & Dreux, Inc.
185 So. 711 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1939)
Todd v. Orr
1914 OK 663 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Stevenson v. Tennessee Copper Co.
193 F. 268 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee, 1911)
Claverie v. Fabacher
48 So. 578 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1909)
State v. Riggs
34 So. 655 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1903)
Clyde Mattox v. United States
146 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 La. Ann. 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-new-orleans-printing-publishing-co-la-1877.