People v. Dickson
California Supreme Court
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.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The 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.)
Motion denied.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. LeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- People v. KahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gay v. TorranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Brevaldo v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1886
- People v. SalmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Derr v. BusickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Schmidt v. SchmidtVan Wert County Court of Common Pleas · 1903