People v. Ferguson

California Supreme Court

People v. Ferguson

34 Cal. 309

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1867

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 34 Cal. 309 (People v. Ferguson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ferguson, 34 Cal. 309 (Cal. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Sandersoh, J.:

"WA cannot reach the points made in behalf of the appellant. The errors, of which complaint is made, occurred at the trial, and can be reviewed only upon bills of exceptions settled and signed by the Judge. None such are found in the record. The agreement signed by the District Attorney to the effect that certain proceedings were had and certain exceptions taken on behalf of the appellant, cannot be taken as a substitute. The agreement amounts, perhaps, to a hill of exceptions settled and signed by the District Attorney, but unfortunately for the appellant the District Attorney is not authorized to settle or allow bills of exceptions. The statute expressly provides that it shall he done by the Judge. (Crim. Prac. Act, Sec. 435; People v. Thompson, 28 Cal. 214.) No one else is authorized to act in his place.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court, Sandersoh, J.:

"WA cannot reach the points made in behalf of the appellant. The errors, of which complaint is made, occurred at the trial, and can be reviewed only upon bills of exceptions settled and signed by the Judge. None such are found in the record. The agreement signed by the District Attorney to the effect that certain proceedings were had and certain exceptions taken on behalf of the appellant, cannot be taken as a substitute. The agreement amounts, perhaps, to a hill of exceptions settled and signed by the District Attorney, but unfortunately for the appellant the District Attorney is not authorized to settle or allow bills of exceptions. The statute expressly provides that it shall he done by the Judge. (Crim. Prac. Act, Sec. 435; People v. Thompson, 28 Cal. 214.) No one else is authorized to act in his place.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Cal. 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ferguson-cal-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack