Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Port. 458

Bourne v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1839

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1839-01-15

Indictment for Issuing a change bill, tried before Pick-ens, J. The indictment charged plaintiff in error, and one Williams, with having “ made a promissory note, and put forth the same as a change bill, as follows, to wit: contrary to the form of the statute,” &c. To the indictment, defendants demurred; which being overruled, they plead not guilty. Bourne was convicted, and Williams acquitted. To reverse tire judgment against Bourne, a writ of error was sued out.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1878

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1839-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CUEIAM.

¶1— The clerk of the Circuit court has no authority to issue writs of error, in any criminal case: in all such, the writs must originate from, an application *460to this court—(Lynes vs. the State, 5 Porter, 236.) As the writ has improvidently issued, it must be dismissed.

¶2On looking into the record, we do not find that any points were reserved, under the statute, as novel and difficult, for the revision of the Supreme court. It is true, a bill of exceptions was signed and sealed by the presiding judge, but the statute prohibits the Circuit courts from referring any question of law, except such as may be novel and difficult; (Aik. Dig. 257)—and this court determined, in the case of Ned vs. the State, (7 Porter 187) that at common law, a bill of exceptions was not allowable.

¶3In the case of the State vs. Prince, (3 Stew. & Porter, 253,) it is said “ this court will not be particular as to the manner in which the questions are referred, if the intention to refer be shown in the record.” No such intention appears, and the entire case must be repudiated.

/8/port/458 · .json · Public domain