Great Western Syndicate v. Superior Court of San Francisco

This matter having come on regularly for hearing before this court upon the petition of the appellants for a writ of mandate to be directed to the Superior Court and the Judge thereof, respondents herein, requiring the respondents to settle and approve the bill of exceptions of the appellants and petitioners herein in the case of TJna Margaret Locke Paddon v. William Locke Paddon et al., now upon appeal in this court, and which is attached to the petition herein; and the respondents having appeared herein and presented certain specific objections to said bill of exceptions and to the settlement and approval thereof, wherein they have specifically directed the attention of this court and also of these petitioners to certain deficiencies and omissions in said bill of exceptions, and which the petitioners herein having thus had their attention specifically directed thereto may, if given a reasonable opportunity, be able to remedy in a revised, amplified, or amended bill of exceptions; and it appearing proper to this court that such reasonable opportunity should be by the respondents herein afforded to the petitioners herein so to do, and good cause appearing therefor,

It is ordered…

I dissent.

The matter comes here on a petition by the appellants for an order directing the respondent court and the judge thereof to settle and approve a bill of exceptions. There is attached to the petition a copy of a motion made in the lower court to dismiss all proceedings taken by the defendants (appellants) touching or concerning the preparation or settlement of the proposed bill of exceptions and to strike the same from the files. Prom the answer to the petition for this writ, verified by the trial judge, it appears that at the time of the hearing of the motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the files the petitioners represented to respondents that their proposed bill of exceptions contained all of the material matters which should be set forth; that at that time the trial judge pointed out many material and important matters which were omitted from the proposed bill, that the testimony of many witnesses was omitted therefrom, and that the testimony of other witnesses was garbled or fabricated. The trial court and counsel for the plaintiff below pointed out, and now specify, some thirty-three particulars in that regard. The petitioners contended that said matters…