CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA AT OCTOBER TERM, 1966. NANCY NIMINEH NAH, Appellant, v. BLECHO NAH, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued October 13, 1966. Decided December 16, 1966. A motion for diminution of record will be denied when the papers in question are not part of the record of the case but belong to the record of another case. On appeal from a judgment of divorce, appellant’s motion for diminution of the record was denied. Simpson Law Firm (G. P. Conger Thompson of counsel) for appellant. Morgan, Grimes & Harmon Law Firm (J. Dossen Richards and John W. Stewart of counsel) for appellee. MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. From the records certified to this Court it would appear that on April 2, 1947, the present appellant, Nancy Nimineh Nah, and the present appellee, Blecho Nah, were joined in the holy state of matrimony in the City of 559 560 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Wichita, State of Kansas, United States of America. Because of some unfavorable, incurable, and uncompromising reasons, the appellee filed a suit for divorce in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County. During the December 1965 term, a verdict was rendered in favor of the appellee entitling him to his divorce and on the and day of February, 1966, final judgment was rendered confirming and affirming the verdict of the petty jury. The appellant, Nancy Nimineh Nah, being dissatisfied with the several rulings and final judgment of the trial court, appealed to this Court for a review of the case. The appellant having complied with all of the legal steps pursuant to the appeal, the case was regularly docketed for the March 1966 term. When the case was called for hearing, appellant filed a motion for continuance to the October 1966 term, on the ground that his notice of appeal was for the October 1966 term instead of the March 1966 term. This motion was denied. Nevertheless, the case could not have been gone into during the March 1966 term and was redocketed for the October 1966 term. When this case again was called, appellant had filed another motion for diminution of record, the body of which motion reads as follows. “1. That in reviewing the record of the above case prepared by the clerk of the Sixth Judicial Circuit and transmitted to this Court it is observed that said record is incomplete and the following sheets missing: (a) defendant’s motion to dismiss action for suit money, in which motion, appellee, then defendant, made record that he had withdrawn his action of divorce for cruelty, and (b) the trial judge’s ruling on appellant’s submission requesting the court to take judicial notice of said withdrawal (see 9th day’s session, Friday, October I, 1965). “Wherefore, appellant prays this Honorable Court that the necessary orders be sent to the clerk of the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 561 Sixth Judicial Circuit to transmit these missing records to this Court in order that appellant may be able to present his case adequately.” We also quote Count r of appellee’s resistance to the motion, which count we feel is pertinent and relevant to the issue : “Because the appellee says that there is no diminution of record in this case because the sheets which the appellant claims to be missing were not a part of the record of the trial of the case from which this appeal was taken, and they could not, therefore, have been transmitted with the record of the case.” From the motion for diminution of record, it is quite clear that these are two separate cases and the case before us now is an action of divorce for cruelty and not an action for suit money. A motion for diminution of record is appropriate when the record forwarded from an inferior court to a superior court in a specific case is incomplete. The specific case before us is an action of divorce for cruelty and should not be confused or coupled with action for suit money. This court is of the mind that appellant has filed this motion for continuance as a means to delay the conclusion of the case and to baffle justice. The motion is therefore denied with costs against appellant. And it is hereby so ordered. Motion denied.