Smith v. House

I express no opin-

ion concerning* the merits of this case — the majority having expressed no opinion on that subject — but I dissent from the view taken by the majority that we cannot consider the testimony as a part of the record because the stipulation of counsel was not filed during* the term. The cases relied on by the majority, as well as the later cases of Road Improvement District v. Stroud, 153 Ark. 587, and Sercer v. Hamilton, 155 Ark. 639, involved the effect of the transcript of a stenographer, and not a stipulation of counsel. The statutory method of bringing oral testimony into…