Territory of Arizona v. Hunter

36 P. 175, 4 Ariz. 197, 1894 Ariz. LEXIS 19
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 23, 1894
DocketCriminal No. 78
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 36 P. 175 (Territory of Arizona v. Hunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Territory of Arizona v. Hunter, 36 P. 175, 4 Ariz. 197, 1894 Ariz. LEXIS 19 (Ark. 1894).

Opinion

SLOAN, J.

A motion to dismiss the appeal herein was made by the attorney-general upon the ground that no notice of appeal as required by section 1866 of the Penal Code was filed in the court below. There is a minute entry in the record reciting that counsel for appellant, after the overruling of the motion for new trial, in open court gave notice of appeal to the supreme court of the territory. Said section 1866 reads as follows: “An appeal to the supreme court of the territory is taken by filing with the clerk of the court, in which the judgment or order appealed from is entered or filed, a notice staying the appeal from the same.” The word “staying,” as printed in the statute quoted, is evidently a misprint of the word “stating.” The section in the California Penal Code, from which ours was taken, confirms this reading. See Pen. Code Cal., sec. 1240. It is elementary law that where the statute points out a particular mode for taking an appeal that mode must be strictly adhered to in order to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court. It is obvious that giving notice in open court that appellant intends taking an appeal is an essentially different proceeding from filing such notice with the clerk of the court. The word “filing,” as used in the section quoted, can be construed only as requiring a [199]*199placing or depositing with the clerk a written notice of intention of taking an appeal. See Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 492. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Baker, 0. J., and Rouse, J., concur.

Hawkins, J., took no part in the above cause when the same was submitted to this court.

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

Related

State ex rel. Murphy v. Superior Court
470 P.2d 486 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1970)
State v. Johnson
277 P.2d 1020 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1954)
State v. Archerd
24 P.2d 5 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Florez v. Territory of Arizona
128 P. 49 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1912)
Clemmons v. State
1911 OK CR 48 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)
Ensley v. State
1910 OK CR 143 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 P. 175, 4 Ariz. 197, 1894 Ariz. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/territory-of-arizona-v-hunter-ariz-1894.