Henley

Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of nonsuit. No brief has been filed by respondents and on the oral argument their learned counsel relied for affirmance of the judgment chiefly upon the point that appellant should not be heard because he had not printed fully in Ms brief the evidence as required by section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1919. In People v. Woods, 190 Cal. 513 [ 213 Pac. 951 ], however, it is said by the supreme court: “The statute requiring the printing in the briefs of the record and evidence relied upon on appeal (sec. 953c, Code Civ. Proc.), particularly since the amendment of 1919 (Stats. 1919, p. 261), must be regarded as one for the convenience of the appellate tribunals, and for that reason directory only, and should be disregarded by the court wherever substantial justice requires it to be done.”

Moreover, when the cause was pending in the supreme court respondents moved the court “to require appellant to print and serve upon respondents and file with said court, a supplement to his brief in which shall be set forth in full that portion of the record relied upon by such appellant, including a copy of all of the evidence taken in…