JOS. R. MOORE, Appellant, v. S. P. GROSS, Appellee.
RE-ARGUED FEBRUARY 17, 1911. DECIDED FEBRUARY 24, 1911.
Toliver, C. J., Wood and McCants-Stewart, JJ.
Material errors and omissions in the preparation of the record on appeal resulting from the neglect of the party to the action, or his counsel, are ground for the dismissal of the appeal.
Mr. Justice McCants-Stewart delivered the opinion of the court:
Damages for refusing to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus—Motion to Dismiss Appeal. The issue at bar is a motion by appellee to dismiss this appeal, which is taken from a judgment rendered in favour of appellee by the Court of Quarter Sessions and Common Pleas for Grand Bassa County sitting in law (Hon. A. J. Mathews, judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions and Common Pleas for Montserrado County, presiding).
The judgment was for the sum of five hundred dollars and costs as damages arising out of a refusal by appellant, as judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions and Common Pleas for Grand Bassa County, to issue a writ of habeas corpus on appellee’s application:
The grounds of the motion, are as follows:
1. “Because there has been no notice of appeal issued or served on the appellee.”
2. “Because the bill of exceptions in said case is not signed by appellant.”
3. “Because the bond filed in the case is illegal and void.”
4. “Because nowhere in said record is there any legal document to show that the costs in said case have been paid.”
The second ground is not worthy of consideration. Such a technical objection as this ground turns out to be should not be raised in a court of justice, especially in the court of last resort. Upon an inspection of the bill of exceptions, we find that it is signed, “Joseph R. Moore, defendant, now appellee.” The word “appellee,” used in this connection, is clearly an inadvertence, and it should not be made a ground of objection. This court will give little if any attention to technicalities not affecting the merits of a controversy; but will endeavor always to get at the substance of the complaints brought before us.
With reference to the other objections, however, we find that it is undisputed that there is (1) no notice of appeal; (2) no stamp upon the receipt for costs ; and (3) no stamp upon the appeal bond. We regard these as material errors bringing this case within the rule laid down in Johnson et al. v. Roberts, (I Lib. L. R. 8).
This motion must be distinguished from the motion in Page et al. v. Jackson, decided at this term. In that case, the only objection urged was, that there was affixed to the appeal bond a postage instead of a revenue stamp. There were no allegations of omissions in perfecting the record on appeal as in this case.
While a party cannot be held responsible for an immaterial error or omission made by a clerk of court in transcribing the records on appeal, yet material errors and omissions in the preparation of the record on appeal resulting from the neglect of the party to the action, or his counsel, are ground for the dismissal of the appeal.
We have reluctantly decided to dismiss this appeal. We do not favour applications of this kind : but as long as the Johnson case, cited above, remains the law, we shall be bound to take notice of “material defects in the records forwarded to this court;” and the parties appealing, or their attorneys, therefore, should inspect all records before they are sent up (I Lib. L. R. 8).
This motion, therefore, must be granted with costs in favour of appellee; and it is so ordered.
P. J. L. Brumskine and C. B. Dunbar, for motion.
T. W. Haynes, opposed.