Davies v. Boyers

• Decision Date: 22 June 1909
• Parties: DAVIES v. BOYERS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

120 S.W. 631

140 Mo. App. 593

DAVIES v. BOYERS.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 22, 1909.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1010)—QUESTIONS OF FACT—CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES.

The credibility of the witnesses, and the weight and value of their testimony, is exclusively for the trial court, and its action thereon will not be reviewed.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1010)—FINDINGS— CONCLUSIVENESS.

Findings of the trial court, supported by substantial evidence, will not be reviewed.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 695)—PROCEEDINGS NOT IN RECORD—TRANSCRIPT—EVIDENCE.

In order to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict, appellant's transcript must contain all the evidence; it not being sufficient to state in the abstract what, in his opinion, the evidence proved.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1133)—DISPOSITION —AFFIRMANCE—INSUFFICIENT PRESENTATION OF QUESTION.

Where the only question raised on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and the transcript does not contain all the evidence, judgment will be affirmed for failure to present the question raised.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Dan. D. Fisher, Judge.

Action by Ivor Davies against John A. Boyers. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wm. A. Kinnerk, for appellant. Robt. C. Powell, for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit on account for labor performed, and materials furnished, in papering a residence for the defendant. Plaintiff recovered, and the defendant appeals.

The appeal is on the short form provided for by our statute. Section 813, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 783). There is no transcript of the evidence before us whatever. If the testimony was preserved in the bill of exceptions, that document is on file in the office of the trial court, as it should be, when the appeal is prosecuted on the short form, and is not here. We are therefore precluded from ascertaining what it contains, if we were disposed to look into it to discover. Plaintiff has wholly failed to abstract the evidence, or print it in full for our perusal. There is but one point raised in appellant's brief, and that is in the following language: "On the uncontroverted evidence in the case, the verdict and judgment should have been given for the defendant, Boyers." It appears from this that we are called upon to review the sufficiency of the testimony to support the verdict. As said, that testimony is not before us, and we are therefore unable to review it. From the very meager statement found in appellant's abstract and...