
    [No. 3,368.]
    WILLIAM BUSH v. CHARLES TAYLOR.
    Defective Statement.—When the statement on motion for a new trial shows on its face that documents which were introduced in evidence are omitted in the statement, or in other words, where it is,,a skeleton statement, the Oourt will not undertake to examine the questions which the appeal was intended to present.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles..
    The action was ejectment. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant moved for a new trial. In the order denying the motion the Court says: “ The engrossed statement in this case does not contain a large proportion of the evidence in the case, as shown by the engrossed statement itself. It refers to other documents and quotations from the record books of the Common Council of the City of Los Angeles. The engrossed statement must contain all that the parties rely on, set out in full, as they wish it to be considered by the Court, The Court cannot hunt up records, record books, or papers, because the statement refers to them and says: ‘ here insert such and such documents.’ The engrossed statement is supposed to contain all that the parties will rely on in appeal to the Supreme Court.”
    
      McConnell, King, and Haley, for Appellant.
    
      V. K. Howard cf Sons, for Respondent.
   By the Court:

In denying the motion for a new trial in this case, the Judge of the Court below very properly adverted to the fact that the statement by which the motion was supported was a mere skeleton statement, and that sundry papers purporting to have been put in evidence at the trial had been omitted, both from the files of the Court and from the engrossment of the statement. The transcript here is found to be in the same condition in this respect, and we cannot, upon such a statement, undertake to examine the questions which the appeal was intended to present.

Judgment and order affirmed.  