Legal Opinion

Sprague v. Fawcett

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1879No. 10,385PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Application for mandamus to compel the respondent, as District Judge, to settle a hill of exceptions. The facts are stated in People v. Sprague, post, p. 491,

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

In People v. Sprague, post, p. 491, we said that if a hill of exceptions was presented or filed, on due notice to the District Attorney, after the expiration of the statutory time and its extensions, it was the duty of the Judge to examine the affidavits accompanying the bill, and if it appeared therefrom that defendant had reasonable excuse for the delay, to proceed to settle the bill. It was also intimated that if the Judge refused to settle the hill and the defendant appealed from the order denying his application for settlement, this Court might on appeal…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People v. LeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Welty v. CampbellWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. State ex rel. Barfield v. MaidenTennessee Supreme Court · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API