Robinson v. Slater

• Decision Date: 17 February 1919
• Docket Number: No. 13111.,13111.
• Citation: 209 S.W. 557
• Parties: ROBINSON v. SLATER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

209 S.W. 557

ROBINSON v. SLATER.

No. 13111.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 17, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; O. A. Lucas, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Jeff Robinson against W. H. Slater. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.

E. E. Hairgrove, of Kansas City, and Andrew Gresham, of Platte City, for appellant.

Noyes & Heath, of Kansas City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff having recovered, defendant has appealed. Appellant's brief opens in large type with the heading, "BRIEF AND ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANT." This is the only heading in the brief. It is not divided in any manner. Then follows in small type "Attorneys representing appellant beg leave to make this brief statement of the facts in this cause." Then follows a column comprising all the matter contained in the brief, in which statement law and argument are jumbled together without any division whatever, so that it is impossible for the court to get a proper understanding of the case without going through and studying the record, which is composed of 278 pages. Section 2080, Rev. St. 1909, requires "a clear and concise statement of the case" to be filed. There is no statement in the brief such as is required by said section. Royal v. Kansas City Western Ry. Co., 190 S. W. 573.

Our rule provides that—

"All briefs * * * shall contain separate and apart from the argument or discussion of authorities a statement, in numerical order, of the points relied on, together with a citation of authorities, appropriate under each point. * * *

"The briefs filed by appellant shall distinctly and separately allege the errors committed by the trial court."

There is no attempt whatever in appelant's brief to comply with this rule. It is impossible to tell from the brief exactly what points appellant is attempting to raise. Counsel for appellant has been guilty of such flagrant disregard of the rules of the court that we must dismiss the appeal. Copeland v. Smith, 197 S. W. 348; Royal v. Kansas City Western Ry. Co., supra.

For the reason stated, the appeal is dismissed.