Opinion
Rehearing Denied April 9, 1970.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Eby & Reddin, George M. Reddin, Brush, for plaintiff in error.
Johnson & McLachlan, Harlan Johnson, Lamar, for defendant in error.
PIERCE, Judge.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, asserts error in the trial court's ruling which denied her motion for change in the custody of the minor child of the parties from the father to herself. She claims several errors in law. The alleged errors, however, are all founded on purported lack, or insufficiency, of evidence to support the trial court's findings and order. The plaintiff has brought before us for review a fragmentary record which contains only the transcript of testimony of Her own witnesses, as well as portions of the pleadings. It is obvious from the court's finding and order, and from the limited record, that the court considered the testimony of at least four other witnesses in arriving at its decision.
The instant case is governed by Howard v. Lester, 153 Colo. 199, 201--202, 385 P.2d 121, at 122, in which the court stated:
'The judgment entered by the trial court is presumed to have been entered After due consideration of all the evidence admitted upon the trial. It will be presumed that a judgment is supported by the evidence until the contrary is made to appear. In the instant case it affirmatively appears that the complete direct and cross-examination of * * * witnesses is omitted from the reporter's transcript; that all of the evidence which formed the basis of the trial court's judgment is not before us. * * * Unless all the testimony heard in the trial court is presented in the reporter's transcript it cannot successfully be urged that the judgment is not supported by the evidence; it being presumed that the evidence before the court fully supports the findings and judgment.' (Emphasis added.)
The judgment is affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and ENOCH, J., concur.