Rosenshine

Pursuant to notice, respondents have presented their motion for an order dismissing the appeal herein, or for an order affirming the judgment.

The motion is grounded upon the alleged failure of appellant to comply with the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure and failure to comply with rule VIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court, relating to the duty of an appellant to print in his brief or in a supplement thereto such portions of the record as he desires to call to the attention of the court.

In support of their position respondents have cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 202 Cal. 295 [ 260 Pac. 290 ], and Bryant v. Kelly, 203 Cal. 721 [ 265 Pac. 817 ], together with numerous earlier decisions referred to in the cited cases.

In the amendment of rule VIII of the Supreme Court, which amendment became effective September 1, 1928, and subsequent to the decisions in the two cases cited, new provisions were adopted into the rule for the purpose of indicating the view of the rule-makers as to what constitutes a substantial compliance with the code section. It was provided in the new rule VIII that “where the parts of the typewritten…