People v. Martin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of the County of San Francisco. • The defendant was tried and convicted of an assault with intent to ravish. It is admitted that there are sufficient errors to warrant a reversal, if the bill of exceptions, which was not signed until more than ten days after the trial, can be considered by this Court. •
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Murray
Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
*478That the record in this case is so full of errors as to warrant an immediate reversal, is admitted by the Attorney General, provided this Court can take notice of the bill of exceptions, which was not signed by the Judge of the Court below within ten days after the trial.
In the absence of anything appearing to the contrary, the legal intendment would arise from the fact of the bill being signed by the Judge, that the same was done regularly. In fact, it is difficult to sec how the failure or refusal to sign a bill of exceptions could…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Leech v. WestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sullivan v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887