EDENBORN v. SIM

EDENBORN v. SIM. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 8, 1913.) No. 264. Appeal and Hhbob (§ (¡55*) — Record—Motion to Strike. AVhere, on a writ of error to review a judgment entered on a referee’s report, the record was voluminous and had already been printed, a motion 1o strike out parts of it would not be granted prior to the hearing on the merits. [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2823-2825; Dec. Dig. § 655.*] In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Action between William Edenborn and James Sim. Erom a judgment in favor of the latter, entered on report of a referee, the former brings error. On motion to strike parts of the record. Denied. Arleigh Pelham, of New York City, for plaintiff in error. T. B. Strong, for defendant in error. Before UACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER. CURIAM.] PER. CURIAM. This voluminous record has already been printed, and it may require very careful scrutiny to determine just what parts of it are not properly before us. For this reason it seems wiser to deny the present motion to strike out parts of it. The questions presented may be disposed of on the main argument. In making this disposition of the motion, we are not to be understood as intimating any departure from the well-settled practice, announced in decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court, as to what questions are open to review on writ of error from a judgment entered after a hearing before a referee.