Opinion
[No. 36, September Term, 1961.]
1961.
APPEAL — Dismissal Of — Where Appellant Failed To Print Pertinent Parts Of Record, Motion To Dismiss Granted. Where the appellant failed to print any part of the record except his two motions seeking postponement of the trial and a reconsideration of the court's refusal of that motion and the statement of facts in the appellant's brief were disputed by the appellee, the Court dismissed the appeal. p. 362
TRIALS — Postponement Of — Within Discretion Of Trial Court Under Maryland Rule 527 a 1 — No Abuse Found. Under Maryland Rule 527 a 1, the trial court may postpone a trial. It was held in this case that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to postpone a trial. The appellant had declined to plead and, being in default, he was in no position to urge a postponement. p. 362
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (PARKER, J.).
Condemnation proceeding by Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission against Ervin Hohensee. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appealed.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Submitted to BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and SYBERT, JJ.
Ervin Hohensee, pro se, on brief for appellant.
John B. Kenkel, Emil A. Nichols and Paul T. Sisson on brief for appellee.
The appellee brought a condemnation proceeding to acquire an easement and right of way for the construction of a sewer line extension across land owned by the appellant and others. This appeal is from a judgment for the appellee, entered upon a jury's verdict. The appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Maryland Rule 828.
The appellant has printed no part of the record in his appendix except two motions filed by him seeking postponement of the trial, and a reconsideration of the court's refusal of that motion. The statement of facts in the appellant's brief is disputed by the appellee. We are therefore unable to pass upon the questions raised by the appellant as to alleged errors in the conduct of the trial. Nor can we find from the record that the trial court, in denying a postponement, abused the discretion conferred upon it by Maryland Rule 527. See Hughes v. Averza, 223 Md. 12, 19, and Lancaster v. Gardiner, 225 Md. 260, 268. Indeed, the record shows that the appellant had declined to plead to the action, although he filed a number of previous motions, not printed in the appendix. Being in default, he was hardly in a position to urge a postponement. Cf. Clarke Baridon v. Union Co., 218 Md. 480, 483.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.