Giffen

Crespi & Co. v. Giffen

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 440·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 701·13 P.2d 936
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 22, 1932Docket No. 813.California597 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Morton, J.

This is a motion by respondent to strike the reporter’s transcript from the record on appeal and for an order affirming judgment of the trial court. The motion is based upon the ground that the reporter’s transcript has not been and cannot be properly authenticated under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure for the reason that the official reporter was not present during a portion of the trial, at which certain evidence was introduced. It appears that after the taking of the evidence at the first hearing, the trial court requested a further deposition of the witness Knowles. By stipulation this deposition was taken and filed in the action. Shortly thereafter counsel for both appellant and respondent appeared in court and without objection this deposition was offered and introduced in evidence and considered by the court; the cause was then further argued by both counsel. The official court reporter was not present during this hearing. It was also found necessary to correct the minutes of the court to show the introduction in evidence of this deposition and also another deposition offered during the trial. The official reporter certified to all of the evidence incorporated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.