Huffaker

This appeal is from a judgment of dismissal of an action after refusal of the plaintiff and appellant to file a bond as required by the provisions of the libel and slander act.

The case, as presented in appellant’s briefs, does not contain sufficient printed extracts from the record to enable this court to determine the character of either the first or the amended complaint. “While the alternative method of appeal permits parties to file typewritten transcripts in lieu of printed judgment-rolls and bills of exceptions, such permission casts no burden upon the appellate courts to examine the typewritten documents in deciding the appeal.” (California Sav. & Com. Bank v. Canne, 34 Cal. App. 768 , [ 169 Pac. 295 ]; Béecham v. Burns, 34 Cal. App. 754 , [ 168 Pac. 1058 ].) To warrant an opinion on the nature of the complaints in this case it is necessary that the whole of the complaints be set forth, and mere fragments are not sufficient.

However, a cursory examination of the typewritten transcript discloses the following facts: The original complaint, while not a model pleading, is an attempt to set forth an action for libel and slander. The lower court so construed it and ordered…