Case ID: nev_6/html/0280-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Whitman, J. :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. WASHINGTON WALLIN, Appellant.
    Appeal — Points not covered by Transcript- not Considered. Alleged error in refusing to grant a continuance cannot be considered by the Supreme Court, if the affidavits are not properly in the transcript, and there is no bill of exceptions, nor statement.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Elko County.
    Defendant was indicted with John G. Watson, for the crime of robbing Charles Haynes of three thousand and three hundred dollars and other property, belonging to Wells, Fargo & Co., in Elko County, on. May 1st, 1870. Being convicted, defendant was sentenced to the State prison for the term of twenty-five years.
    There appears to have been a motion for continuance made in the Court below on affidavits, which are copied into the transcript; but there is nothing to identify them or show that they were used on the motion.
    
      T. D. Edwards and Thomas Wells, for Appellant.
    
      L. A. Buckner, Attorney General, for Respondent.
    The affidavits for .continuance are not embodied or referred |o in any bill of exceptions or statement, and are therefore no part of the record. (People v. Price, 17 Cal. 310; People v. Thompson, 28 Cal. 218; People v. John B. Ferguson, 34 Cal. 309; People v. Wilson, 5 Nev. 43.)
   By the Court,

Whitman, J. :

This case falls within the rule heretofore adopted by this Court. The affidavits alleged to have been used on the motion for continuance are not properly in the transcript and cannot be considered.; there is no bill of exceptions, nor any statement. (State v. Wilson, 5 Nev. 43.) No objection is made upon the indictment or the instructions of the Court, and no error appears therein. The only error assigned is the refusal of a continuance ; the minutes of the Court show such a ruling, and nothing more. It cannot be presumed to be erroneous, in absence of an affirmative showing to that effect.

The judgment is affirmed.