AI-generated from this judgment's text. It can contain errors and is not the official version.
No AI brief yet. Click to generate.
Majority
p. 237[No. 15554. Department Two. September 28, 1894.] THOMAS KELLY, Respondent, v. WILLIAM B. BRADBURY, Appellant.
Headnote
Appeal — Review op Evidence — Failure op Respondent to File Bribe. Where it appears from the record upon appeal that the verdict of the jury is assailed by specifications on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support it, and there is no brief on file by the respondent, and the case is not orally argued in his brief, the judgment and order appealed from will be reversed.Appeal from a judgment of tbe Superior Court of tbe City and County of San Francisco.
Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.
Gordon & Young, for Appellant.
Charles A. Low, for Respondent.
It appears from tbe record that tbe verdict of tbe jury is assailed by the specifications, on tbe ground of tbe insufficiency of tbe evidence to support it.
There is no brief on file by respondent, nor was tbe case orally argued in his behalf; it therefore follows, on the authority of Richter v. Fresno etc. Co., 101 Cal. 582 , and Davis v. Hart, 103 Cal. 530 , that the judgment and order appealed from should be reversed.
So ordered
McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred;
Cases cited
- Richter v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co. 101 Cal. 582 p. 237
- Davis v. Hart 103 Cal. 530 p. 237