Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

139 Ala. 131

Peterman v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1903

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1903-11-15

Tried before the Hob. Joiik P. Hubbabd. The appellant in this case, Albert Peterman, was indicted, tried and convicted for carrying a pistol concealed about his person. Under the opinion of the present appeal, the bill of exceptions can not be looked to in order to review the rulings of the trial court; and, therefore, it is unnecessary to set out the facts of the case in detail.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1907

3 state decisions

Relies on Dantzler & Sons v. Swift Creek Mill Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1903-11-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DOWDELL, J. —

¶1The bill of exceptions in this case was signed in vacation. So far as the record shows there was no agrément in writing by counsel, nor order of the court in term time, pursuant to the requirements of the statute, which extended the time for the signing of the bill beyond the term of the court. The bill of exceptions contains a recital to the effect, that an order was made by the court fixing a time in vacation, but no such order appears in the record proper. It has been decided by this court that such an order by the court must appear of record, and the omission cannot be supplied by a recital in the bill of exceptions. — Dantzler v. Swift Creek Mill Co., 128 Ala. 410, and other cases following-that one.

¶2The bill of exceptions, therefore, cannot be looked to or considered for any purpose. No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

¶3A (firmed.

/139/ala/131 · .json · Public domain