D. D. TWEGBEY and PETER TEAH, Appellants, v. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued November 24, 1952. Decided December 12, 1952. 1. In the absence of an approved appeal bond and bill of exceptions, a motion to dismiss the appeal will be granted. 2. A party alleging the existence of a fact must prove it. 3. The best evidence must always be produced. 4. Where counsel for appellant submitted his copy of a letter which he allegedly sent as a covering letter with copies of the bill of exceptions and appeal bonds to the trial judge for his approval, and had no other evidence to prove that he had sent them for approval, such proof is not sufficient and the Court will grant a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the bill of exceptions and appeal bond were not approved by the trial judge. On motion to dismiss an appeal on jurisdictional grounds, motion granted. J. G. Kolenky for appellant. for appellee. MR. JUSTICE REEVES The Solicitor General delivered the opinion of the Court. At the call of this case appellee’s counsel gave notice that he had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and had served a copy thereof on counsel for appellants. The Court inquired if counsel for appellants had received said copy. He replied that he had, and asked the Court to grant him three days in order to file a resistance to said motion. This was granted, and, after three days, the case was again called. Both parties were present, and the following motion to dismiss was read : “And now comes S. Raymond Horace, Esquire, Solicitor General of the Republic of Liberia, counsel for appellee, and most respectfully moves this Court 296 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS to dismiss the appeal in the above entitled cause, and for legal reasons showeth the following, to wit: “I. Because appellee says that, according to the records of the case certified to this Court, the appeal bond and bill of exceptions have not been approved by the trial judge in keeping with the mandatory provisions of the statutes on appeals. . . . Wherefore, in view of this wanton violation of the statute on appeals, appellee prays this Court to dismiss the appeal in this case and order the court below to resume jurisdiction and execute final judgment.” In support of the foregoing motion the appellee cited Johnson v. Roberts, i L.L.R. 8, 9 (1860 : “The court cannot entertain any case that is legally deficient in its records. A true copy of the bond is indispensably necessary to be forwarded, the original to be retained on the files below, as the security of the court on behalf of him against whom the appeal is taken. All cases sent forward on appeal must be taken out within sixty days, having the signature of the judge to the exceptions, as well as all other preliminaries contemplated by the law relating to appeals. These preliminaries are indispensably necessary to a legal appeal. “The law will not admit of invasions upon itself, and for the court to entertain any appeal which may be deficient in its most important and indispensable features, and which are most calculated to lead to a just decision in the case, would not be in keeping with the record and inviolable rights of the nation.” Counsel for appellants alleged as following in the resistance : “1. Appellants’ original bill of exceptions and appeal bond were actually dispatched, under cover of a LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 297 letter dated December 8, 195o, to Judge J. Dossen Richards, who, by assignment, presided over the trial court, before he could approve said appeal papers. The text of said covering letter, from copy in appellants’ files, is quoted below. ” ‘Attached hereto you will please find copies of appellants’ bill of exceptions together with appellants’ appeal bond forwarded in the mail under registered cover to you for your scrutiny, approval, and return to us for regular process of filing in the office of the clerk, with whom a copy has been lodged. You will also observe that the bond has not been filled out as to the penalty thereof. Kindly include or insert same and accept our sincere thanks in anticipation.’ ” When queried by the Court as to why had he neglected to support this allegation by a registered receipt from the post office, counsel stated that his colleague in Cape Palmas had not sent it up. When asked if he possessed any other legal proof that he could exhibit in support of his resistance he replied that he had none except that his colleague had written to him. It is evident, therefore, that appellants adduced no proof in support of their resistance. But counsel contended that, from the allegations of the resistance, it could be inferred that it was solely an act of the court which caused the omission of appellants’ original bill of exceptions and appeal bond from the original records of the case in the office of the clerk of court, and that such an act should not be prejudicial to any party. He therefore prayed that appellee’s motion to dismiss be denied. We would have been more sympathetic toward this position if counsel for appellants had produced the registered post office receipt for the letter claimed to have contained the bill of exceptions and appeal bond posted to the judge. But counsel was unable to do so. The following statutory provisions are pertinent: 298 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS “It shall be the duty of every party alleging the existence of any fact to prove it. The burden of proof rests on the party who maintains the affirmative, except in special cases. “The best evidence which the case admits of must always be produced ; that is, no evidence is sufficient, which supposes the existence of better evidence.” 1841 Digest, pt. II, tit. II, ch. X, � 1, 8 ; 2 Hub. 1548. The appellants should not expect this Court to do for them what they should do for themselves. Blacklidge v. Blacklidge, [1901] LRSC 1; 1 L.L.R. 371, 372 (19o1). Anderson v. Dennis., [1872] LRSC 6; 1 L.L.R. 505, 5o6 (1872). It is therefore clear that this Court has no alternative but to dismiss the appeal ; and it is hereby so ordered. Motion granted.