Majority
Headnote
Mandamus—Bill of Exceptions—Waiver of Notice. — When the evidence is conflicting as to whether a draught of a bill of exceptions in a criminal case was presented to the judge for settlement, and there is nothing in the record to show that the proposed bill was served upon the district attorney, or that notice of its presentation was given to him, or that any showing was made to the judge that the notice required by section 1171 of the Penal Code had been given or waived, but there is merely an ex parte affidavit that such notice was waived by the assistant district attorney, it does not appear that the judge improperly refused to settle the bill of exceptions, and mandamus will not lie to compel him to settle the same. The waiver of notice should be made of record, or by some writing, and not be left to the uncertainty of human memory.The appellant makes application for a mandamus to compel the judge of the court below, who has retired from' office, to settle and sign a bill of exceptions in this case.
The motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment rendered March 3,1888, and on the 12th of March fifteen days additional time was given within which to file the bill of exceptions. The affidavit of the attorney for the defendant shows that a draught of the bill was presented for settlement on the twenty-fourth day of March, but the judge who tried the case makes affidavit that it was
There is nothing to show that any showing was made to the judge that the two days’ notice required by section 1171 of the Penal Code was given, or that it had been waived, nor is it shown that the waiver élaimed to have been made was ever brought to his attention before instituting this proceeding. Therefore, leaving out of consideration the conflicting evidence upon the question, whether the proposed bill was ever presented or not, it does not appear that the judge has improperly refused to settle the bill of exceptions. (People v. Sprague, 53 Cal. 422 .) Beside, we are of the opinion that where the defendant, in a criminal case, relies upon a waiver of the notice required by the statute, such waiver should be made of record, or by some writing, and not be left to the uncertainty of human memory.
Writ denied.
Paterson, J., McFarland, J., Sharpstein, J., Beatty, C. J., and Thornton, J., concurred.
Cases cited
- Sprague v. Fawcett 53 Cal. 408 p. 405
- Gallardo v. Atl. & Pac. Tel. Co. 49 Cal. 510 p. 405
- People v. Sprague 53 Cal. 422 p. 406