State v. Van Cleave

• Decision Date: 08 January 1902
• Citation: 157 Ind. 608,62 N.E. 446
• Parties: STATE v. VAN CLEAVE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

157 Ind. 608

62 N.E. 446

STATE

v.VAN CLEAVE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 8, 1902.

Appeal from circuit court, Parke county; A. F. White, Judge.

Elijah L. Van Cleave was indicted for crime, and from the judgment rendered the state appeals. Dismissed.

J. M. Johns, Pros. Atty., W. L. Taylor, Atty. Gen., C. C. Hadley, and Merrill Moores, for the State. Puett & McFaddin, for appellee.

HADLEY, J.

Rule 31 of this court, in force at the time the transcript in this case was filed (1899), is as follows: “The appellantshall cause the transcript to be paged and the lines of each page to be numbered. He shall also cause marginal notes to be placed on the transcript in their appropriate places, indicating the several parts of the pleadings in the cause, the exhibits, if any, the orders of the court, and the bills of exceptions. Where the evidence is set out by deposition or otherwise, the names of the witnesses shall be stated in the margin. The appellant shall also note on the margin all motions and rulings thereon, and he shall also note the instructions given and refused in all cases where questions are made thereon.” Rule 3, 1900 (55 N. E. iv.). The requirement of this rule with respect to the marginal notes has been wholly ignored. The record embraces divers pleadings, exhibits, motions, orders of court, rulings, and bills of exceptions, and not a note anywhere in the body of the transcript to indicate where any particular matter may be found. Courts have the inherent power to ordain such rules as they may find necessary to a proper dispatch of business, and, when once established, they become invested with the force and effect of law. Smith v. State, 140 Ind. 340, 36 N. E. 708. The right to invoke the benefit of the rule is not confined to the appellee, but this court, charged with the duty of expediting the business before it, may of its own motion enforce it, as we do in this case. We are required and expected to rightly apprehend the entire record, and to accurately discover that which will support, as well as that which will subvert, the judgment. To do this it often becomes necessary to make frequent references to the transcript, and, when unaided by marginal notes, much time is often consumed in finding the things sought. Public interest, as well as the rights of appellees, calls for a strict enforcement of this rule. Smith v. State, 137 Ind. 198, 36 N. E. 708;Egan v. Railway Co., 138 Ind. 274, 37 N. E. 1014; Ewbank, Man. § 119; Ell...