¶1I dissent. In this case the defendant by his appeal makes the point that the evidence is not sufficient to establish his guilt. To support this contention he presents to the trial judge a bill of exceptions containing all the evidence by question and answer introduced at the trial. To recognize the legality of such a practice is to encourage indolent attorneys, greatly increase the labor of this court, *282and double the expense entailed upon the various counties of the state in the printing of transcript upon appeal. This-court has repeatedly held that the trial judge is justified in refusing to settle such a bill of exceptions, and has sustained his. action in so refusing. (See cases cited in Cohen v. Wallace, 107 Cal. 133). There is no case to the contrary in the reports of this state.
121 Cal. 279
Winters v. Buck
Decided June 25, 1898
California Supreme Court · decided 1898-06-25
PETITION to the Supreme Court, for a writ of mandate to compel the settlement of a bill of exceptions to be used upon appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County, and from an order denying a new trial. George H. Buck, Judge. The facts are- stated in the opinion of .the court.
Relies on Cohen v. Wallace
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1898-06-25
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1933
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →