46 Cal. 53
Decided July 1, 1873
California Supreme Court · decided 1873-07-01
Application to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandate. The petitioner was convicted of grand larceny in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and his counsel, desiring to take an appeal, applied to the Judge of the Court to settle and sign a bill of exceptions. The Judge declined to do so, the time for taking it having expired. The petitioner then made the application for mandamus to require him to settle and sign it.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1923
3 state decisions
Relies on People v. Lee · People v. Kahl
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1873-07-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1The bill of exceptions which the prisoner desires the Court below to certify, is not contained in the record nor shown to us upon this application for a writ of mandamus against the Judge. In its absence we are unable to determine whether it would, if settled and signed, tend to manifest any error committed at the trial. (People v. Lee, 14 Cal. 510; People v. Kohl, 18 Cal. 432.)
¶2Motion denied.