Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0395-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MERRITT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(92 South. 510)
    PERDUE v. STATE.
    (4 Div. 721.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 7, 1922.)
    Criminal law <S=^I092(7) — Bill of exceptions not shown to have been presented within 90 days after judgment cannot be considered.
    Where it appears that bill of exceptions was approved nearly six months after the judgment was rendered, and it does not appear when it was presented, so that it is not shown that it was presented within 90 days, the bill of exceptions cannot be considered. ,
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Crenshaw County; A. E. Gamble, Judge.
    Hammond Perdue was convicted of having carnal knowledge of a girl under 16 years of age, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Ira B. Thompson, of Ruverne, for appellant.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    The bill of exceptions was not presented within time, and cannot therefore be considered. There is no error in the record.
   MERRITT, J.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment which charged that he did carnally know or abuse in the attempt to carnally know a girl over the age of 12 and under the age of 16 years, and his punishment fixed by the jury at 2 years in the penitentiary.

It appears that judgment was rendered in this case on May 13, 1921, and that the bill of exception was approved on November 7, 1921. It does not appear when the bill of exceptions was presented. It not appearing that the bill of exceptions was presented in 90 days, the same cannot be considered.

We have examined the record and find no reversible error. The judgment of eonvic- / tion is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      (g^jFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes