
    40 So.2d 475
    SMITH v. ATKINS.
    No. 39295.
    April 25, 1949.
    
      Hussey & Smith, of Shreveport, for defendant and appellant.
    Robert J. N-ewson, of Shreveport, for plaintiff and appellee.
   PONDER, Justice.

The plaintiff, -appellee, moves to di-s-miss the -appeal in thi-s e-ase -on the -ground -that the transcript is incomplete.

An appeal will -not be -dismissed without first -allowing the appellant time to complete -the transcript -in -compliance with the provisions of Act 234 of 1932.

Upon submission of the motion to dismiss the appeal, the appellant has filed a supplemental transcript -containing the documents -that the -appellee claims were left out of the transcript. On three prior occasions we have entertained -controversies between the parties -to this suit involving the property in -dispute herein. See Atkins v. Smith, 204 La. 468, 15 So. 2d 855; Atkins v. Smith, 207 La. 560, 21 So.2d 728 -and Smith v. Atkin-s, 211 La. 369, 30 So.2d 121. It was not necessary to incorporate in the transcript a -copy of our opinions in those cases or portions of ou-r records -in the prior suits because we can take cognizance of our -own -records.

For the reasons assigned, the motion is denied.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no -part.  