
    Jeannot, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Dalmau, Defendant and Appellee. (Central Machete Company, Intervenor).
    Appeal from the District Court of G-uayama in an Action of Debt — Motion for Dismissal.
    No. 3078.
    Decided June 12, 1923.
    Statement op Case — Transcript op Evidence. — When an appellant elects to present a statement of the case to the judge who presided at the trial, it is the duty of the judge to approve it or order the necessary amendments to be made, although the xiarties may not appear on the day set for considering the statement of the case; but he has no authority to order that the statement of the ease be substituted by the transcript of the evidence provided for by Act No. 27 of 1917.
    Id. — Id. — Appeal. •— On motion for dismissal under Rule 69 of the Supreme Court it was held: That it having been shown that the appellant had taken steps for the correction of the error of the court in failing to approve or amend the statement of the ease and ordering that it be substituted by a transcript of the evidence, the appeal should not be dismissed.
    The facts are stated in tbe opinion.
    
      Mr. A. Porrata Doria for the appellant.
    
      Mr. J. Tons Soto for tbe intervenor.
   Me. Justice Aldeey

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

On May 29, 1923, a motion was filed in this court for tbe dismissal of tbe appeal taken by tbe plaintiff from the judgment rendered in this case by tbe District Court of Gruayama.

From tbe documents before us it does not appear who was the judge who disposed of this case, hut we infer that it was the present judge of the District Court of Ponce, because the statement of the case prepared by the appellant was sent to him for approval. The said judge set a day for the approval of the statement of the case, but the parties failed to appear and instead of approving the statement of the case or ordering that it be amended, he ordered on February 26, 1923, that it be sent to the clerk of the District Court of G-uayama in order that the stenographer should prepare a transcript of the evidence in accordance with section 2 of Act No. 27 of November 27, 1917.

The appeal remained in this condition until, as averred by the appellant, he made a motion in the court below before the motion for dismissal of appeal was filed here, asking for the approval of the statement of the case presented by him. Such is the present condition of the appeal.

As the statute permits the appellant to prepare the statement of the case himself or to ask that the stenographer make a transcript of the evidence and the appellant elected the former course, the judge should have approved the statement of the Case or ordered that the necessary amend ments be made, for he is not authorized to impose -upon the appellant the duty of preparing the transcript of the evidence in a different manner from that chosen by the appellant under the statute; but inasmuch as the appellant has presented a statement of the case and has attempted to correct the error of the. Court, we shall not dismiss the appeal.

The motion is overruled.

Motion overruled.

Chief Justice Del Toro and Justices Wolf, Hutchison and Franco Soto concurred.  