We find no abuse of discretion here on the part of the superior court and therefore no error. For cases in which the record was so defective that it precluded the adequate review of an issue and therefore made the issue of a new trial important, see Montgomery v. Board of Administration, 34 Cal.App.2d 514, 93 P.2d 1046, 94 P.2d 610 (1939); Take v. Powell, 138 Okl. 244, 280 P. 811 (1929); Hayden v. City of Astoria, 74 Or. 525, 145 P. 1072 (1915). SLA 1959, ch. 184, § 20(3), as amended by SLA 1960, ch. 5, § 3.
ANDREWS, J. This is an original proceeding in this court in mandamus against the district judge of the First judicial district of the state of Oklahoma for the construction and interpretation of the mandate and opinion in cause No. 19468, Louisa Take and William Take, Minors, by A.T. Edmondson, Guardian, Plaintiffs in Error, v. J.T. Powell, Defendant in Error, 138 Okla. 244, 280 P. 811, and the mandate in cause No. 19466 in this court, dismissed without opinion. The proceeding is authorized by the rule announced by this court in St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Hardy, District Judge, 45 Okla. 423, 146 P. 38, in which it was held: