Sea

This is an appeal prosecuted under what is known as the alternative method, a method characterized by Mr. Justice Shaw in Estate of Gamble, 166 Cal. 253 , [ 135 Pac. 970 ], as. “a pitfall for the unwary.” Sueh it has been and such it continues to be, but the virtue of continually calling the attention of the profession to the repeated depart ures from proper procedure under the method has had little more reward than that which is said to be virtue’s own. These remarks are prompted by the fact that the present case exhibits another instance of a failure to observe the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the effect that, on an appeal under the alternative method, the parties must print in their briefs “such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.” In a recent opinion we have cited many cases to the proposition that “appellate courts will not look to the typewritten transcripts filed under the alternative method of appeal for the purpose of determining whether grounds exist for the reversal of the judgment appealed from” (Barker Bros. v. Joos, 36 Cal. App. 311 , [ 171 Pac. 1085 ]). In the present case there has been some…