Spelke v. Shaw

Decision Date14 July 1931
Citation114 Conn. 272,155 A. 715
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSPELKE et al. v. SHAW.

Action by Abram Spelke and others aganist William G. Shaw. On motion that court order evidence certified and printed after appeal from judgment therein.

Motion granted, and trial court directed to certify and order printed all evidence except exhibits.

Charles S. Hamilton, of New Haven, for William G. Shaw, individually and as trustee, and Estelle, Godfrey, Ella, and Norman Bindon Shaw, and Enid Shaw Vinicky.

William G. Shaw, pro se.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.


This appeal was taken before the new rules for appellate procedure took effect. The trial court filed a finding, and the appellants thereupon made a motion to correct it in various respects, and, proceeding under section 5832 of the Revision of 1918, filed a copy of all the evidence and rulings in the case verified by the stenographer and asked to have it made a part of the record. In their appeal the appellants asked to have the finding corrected by striking out certain portions of it as found without evidence and by adding a number of paragraphs of the draft-finding as being undisputed facts. The trial court, instead of certifying all the evidence certified only certain portions of it and directed that the remainder be not printed. The appellants have made a motion in this court that it direct the trial court to certify and order printed all the evidence.

The statute provides that the clerk need not print as a part of the record " any portion of the stenographer's minutes which the parties to the case shall agree in writing is not necessary to be printed, or which the court shall direct not to be printed." We do not read this provision of the statute as intended to give a trial court power finally to determine what portions of the stenographer's minutes should be printed and hence come before this court as a basis for determining the rights of the parties. In 1901 when the statute was enacted, there was in existence a rule of this court which provided as follows: " Any party claiming that by reason of omissions from the record as printed, the questions of law in the case are not properly presented, may move at the opening of the Supreme Court of Errors before which the case is brought, for an order directing the clerk to print the portions so omitted." Practice Book 1922, p. 315, § 28. This rule must have been in the contemplation of the Legislature when it enacted the statute. Where a trial court directs certain portions of the evidence not to be printed, any party affected may move this court, under the rule, for an order that all, or additional portions of it be printed. When that is done, recourse may be had to the certified copy of all the evidence filed by the appellants in connection with the appeal and this court, if it deems that any other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Spelke v. Shaw
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 9 février 1932
    ...From a judgment for defendants for their interests after trial to the court, plaintiffs appeal. Error, and cause remanded. See, also, 155 A. 715. William H. Comley, of Bridgeport, for Charles S. Hamilton, of New Haven, for appellees. Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS an......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT