O'Farrell v. Templeman

• Decision Date: 22 January 1929
• Docket Number: 19096.
• Citation: 146 S.E. 914,39 Ga.App. 222
• Parties: O'FARRELL v. TEMPLEMAN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

146 S.E. 914

39 Ga.App. 222

O'FARRELL v. TEMPLEMAN.

No. 19096.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

January 22, 1929

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Where no bona fide effort was made to brief evidence by reducing it to narrative form as required by Civ. Code 1910, § 6093, but purported brief of evidence contained questions and answers matter excluded from evidence, objections to admissibility of testimony, rulings of court thereon, and interpolation and colloquies by counsel, Court of Appeals will not consider evidence.

In suit to recover damages incurred in collision between automobiles at intersection, charge submitting as applicable, ordinances giving right of way to drivers on right of other vehicles and providing that drivers failing to recognize such right are guilty of reckless driving and requiring drivers making left turn to have vehicle under full control, was not error on ground that ordinances were not applicable and imposed no duty on plaintiff, where defendant's automobile was operated without lights in violation of ordinance.

Failure of defendant automobilist to comply with law made for plaintiff automobilist's protection does not excuse plaintiff's violation of law made for defendant's protection.

Purported copy of brief of evidence prepared by counsel for plaintiff in error and presented to Court of Appeals with motion for rehearing purporting to contain all evidence in record and omitting objectionable matter, but which is not agreed to by opposing counsel even if their consent could give it validity, cannot be considered by Court of Appeals.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; G. H. Howard, Judge.

Action by G. H. O'Farrell against L. V. Templeman. Judgment for defendant, plaintiff's motion for new trial was overruled, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

G Seals Aiken, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

McDaniel & Neely, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

STEPHENS, J.

1. It appearing that no bona fide effort has been made to brief the evidence in this case by reducing it to narrative form, as is required before this court can be called upon to consider the evidence, but what purports to be the brief of evidence being questions and answers, matter excluded from evidence, objections as to the admissibility of testimony, and rulings of the court thereon, and interpolations and colloquies by counsel, this court will not consider the evidence. Section 6093, Civil Code 1910; Roberts v. Rowell, 152 Ga. 97, 108 S.E. 466; Jackson v. Dorsey, 26 Ga.App. 372, 106 S.E. 210.

Judgment affirmed.

JENKINS, P.J., and BELL, J., concur.

On Motion for Rehearing.

STEPHENS J.

2. In a suit to recover damages to the...