From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ah Fat

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1874
47 Cal. 631 (Cal. 1874)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.

         The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and moved for a new trial. He presented to the Court a bill of exceptions; which was settled and allowed, and thereupon the motion was heard and denied. The defendant then appealed from the judgment, and from the order denying a new trial, relying upon the bill of exceptions, as settled before the hearing of the motion.

         COUNSEL

          S. S. Holl, for Respondents, moved to strike out the bill of exceptions, on the ground that it had not been properly settled.

          Jo Hamilton, for Appellant, argued that, as the bill of exceptions contained all the record, and had been settled by the Court, it was sufficient.


         JUDGES: Chief Justice Wallace, speaking for the Court.

         OPINION

          WALLACE, Judge

         Chief Justice Wallace, speaking for the Court, said:

         The Court is of opinion that there should be a bill of exceptions settled by the Judge, after the disposition of the motion for a new trial.

         Motion granted.


Summaries of

People v. Ah Fat

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1874
47 Cal. 631 (Cal. 1874)
Case details for

People v. Ah Fat

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. AH FAT

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1874

Citations

47 Cal. 631 (Cal. 1874)

Citing Cases

Stephenson v. State

See Hall v. State, supra, where, at page 607 (199 Ind.) the well known passage from Hale, Pleas of Crown, p.…

People v. Wade

Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion.…