
    [Decided January 5, 1887.]
    CHARLES H. DODD v. A. S. BOWLES, A. &. D. SOMMERS, and E. E. ROBERTS.
    Appeal — Record — Dismissal — Costs. — Where, on appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington Territory, in an action at law, there was no appearance in the transcript of a bill of exceptions, or statement of facts, or record of exceptions taken at the trial, and the description or date of the filing of the brief of plaintiff in error did not conform to the rules of court, a motion to affirm the judgment below was denied, and the case continued to the next term for a hearing on the merits, on condition that plaintiff in error pay the costs of both courts.
    Error to the District Court holding terms at Walla Walla. First District.
    Motion by defendants in error to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment.
    
      Messrs. Catón & Stanford, and Mr. Richard Williams, for the Plaintiff in Error.
    
      Messrs. C. B. & W. H. XJpton, and Messrs. B. L. & J. L. Sharpstein, for the Defendant in Error.
   Mr. Chief Justice Greene

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a case at law. We do not think that the nonappearance in the transcript of any bill of exceptions, or statement of facts, or record of exceptions taken on trial, is good ground for granting the motion to affirm the judgment rendered in the court below in this cause. Nor do we think best to affirm that judgment on account of the description or date of filing of the briefs of plaintiffs in error, without giving opportunity for a hearing on the merits. But inasmuch as in both the latter particulars there has been a wanton disregard of the rules of this court, there will he an affirmance, unless the plaintiffs in error within ten days pay all costs, both in the lower court and in this court, to date. Defendant in error shall have the option of a continuance to next term, and if he elects to continue, the briefs of plaintiffs in error will be stricken from the files, with leave to file new briefs, conformable to the rules, twenty days before the next term, saving to defendants in error the right to file answering briefs, as if the case had been originally brought to the next term.

Hoxt, J., and Turner, J., concurred.  