Legal Opinion

Daley v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided March 16, 1922PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the city of Portsmouth.

1Opinion of the CourtPrentis, J.

[1, 2] John Daley and A. P. Males have each been convicted of selling ardent spirits in violation of the statute. There are six errors assigned in the petition, but they are each based upon bills of exception which are not signed by the judge of the trial court.- He refused .to sign them because they were not tendered within sixty days from the date of the final judgment.

The statute, Code 1919, section 6252, is mandatory, and there being no exceptions in the record before this court, and no reversible error on the face of the record, the judgment of the trial court is presumed to be correct…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Harley v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1921
  2. Bragg v. JustisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1921

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Stephens v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1983
  2. McDowell v. DyeSupreme Court of Virginia · 1952
  3. Rollins v. BazileSupreme Court of Virginia · 1964
  4. Wymer v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1991
  5. Haskins v. HaskinsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1947

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API