Hawkins v. State
This text of 166 N.E. 153 (Hawkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
The only error presented for decision is the action of the lower court overruling appellant’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which error presented must be decided exclusively upon the evidence presented to the trial court. The appellee insists that the original bill of exceptions of the evidence is notin the record for the reason that the date of the presentation of the original bill of exceptions to the judge for settlement and signature is not stated in the bill itself. The statute in express terms requires that “the date of the presentation shall be stated in the bill of exceptions,” etc. §686 Burns 1926, Acts 1881 (Spec. Sess.) ch. 38, Civil Code §406, p. 317; Orton v. Tilden (1886), 110 Ind. 131, 139, 10 N. E. 936; Buchart v. Berger (1888), 115 Ind. 123, 17 N. E. 125; Rigler v. Rigler (1889), 120 Ind. 431-433, 22 N. E. 776; McCoy v. State, ex rel. (1889), 121 Ind. 160, 22 N. E. 986; City of Plymouth v. Fields (1890), 125 Ind. 323, 25 N. E. 346; Buckner v. Spaulding (1890), 127 Ind. 229, 26 N. E. 792. But see Hale v. Matthews (1888), 118 Ind. 527, 529, 530, 21 N. E. 43.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
166 N.E. 153, 201 Ind. 82, 1929 Ind. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-state-ind-1929.