From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dickson

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1873
46 Cal. 53 (Cal. 1873)

Opinion

         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.

         COUNSEL:

         H. E. McBride, for Petitioner.

          John L. Love, Attorney-General, for Respondents.


         OPINION          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.


Summaries of

People v. Dickson

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1873
46 Cal. 53 (Cal. 1873)
Case details for

People v. Dickson

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. DICKSON

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 1, 1873

Citations

46 Cal. 53 (Cal. 1873)

Citing Cases

People v. Salmon

(State v. Marvin, 12 Iowa, 499; Searls v. People, 13 Ill. 597; State v. Crowner, 56 Mo. 147.) In this state…

Gay v. Torrance

This rule has been applied by this court on several occasions. (See People v. Kahl, 18 Cal. 432; People v.…