
    [Civ. No. 1307.
    First Appellate District.
    January 28, 1914.]
    FREDERICK J. RUSSELL, Appellant, v. ISABELLA J. CHISHOLM et al., Respondents.
    Appeal—Authentication op Transcript—Absence op Judge’s Certificate.—A transcript on appeal from an order granting a motion for a new trial which contains no certificate of the judge that the papers and records included in .the transcript are any or all of those used upon the hearing of the motion, is insufficient under either the old or new method of perfecting and presenting the record on appeal, although the transcript has attached to it .the certificate of the clerk that the papers and orders therein contained are true copies of fhe originals on file in his office.
    
      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Alameda County granting a new trial William S. Wells, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Z. N. Goldsby, for Appellant.
    Reed, Black, Reed & Bingaman, for Respondents.
   RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting the motions for a new trial of defendants Chisholm and Gray. The respondents stand at the threshold,of this appeal objecting to its consideration upon the merits on the ground that no properly authenticated transcript on appeal has been perfected or filed. The transcript oh appeal herein has attached to it the certificate of the clerk of the superior court from which the appeal is taken, “that the papers and orders therein contained are tine, full and correct copies of the originals on file and of record in this office, and of the whole thereof, together with the proof of service and filing thereof, and the indorsements thereon”; but there is no certificate of the judge of the court that the papers and records which the transcript contains were any or all of the papers or records which were used, upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial. That a transcript lacking such certificate is insufficient under either the old or new method of perfecting and presenting the record on appeal, is settled under the authority of Thompson v. American Fruit Co., 21 Cal. App. 338, [131 Pac. 878], and cases therein cited.

It follows that the respondent’s objection to the further consideration of this appeal must be held to be well taken.

The order is affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J.„ concurred.  