Case ID: ala_142/html/0012-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SIMPSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richardson v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Robbery.
    
    1. Bill of exceptions; when properly stricken from the file. — Where it appears from the record in a case that the bill of exceptions was not signed within the time prescribed by law, or within the time fixed by order of the court, such bill of exceptions will not be considered on appeal, and will be stricken from the file on motion; and where by order of the court the defendant in a criminal case is given “until January 5th, 1905,” in which to have the bill of exceptions signed by the presiding judge, the time for signing the bill of exceptions expires on the night of January 4th, and if the time is extended on the 5th of January, it is after the expiration of the time allowed by order of the court.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Gadsden.
    Tried before the Hon. John H. Disqxjb.
    The appellant in this case was indicted, tried and convicted for robbery, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for 40 years.
    In the Supreme Court there was a motion made to strike the bill of exceptions from the file upon the ground that it was not signed within the time allowed by law.
    No counsel marked appearing for appellant.
    Massey Wilson, Attorney-General, for the State.
   SIMPSON, J.

The motion to strike the bill of excep-. tions from the files is sustained.

On November 16th 1904, the defendant was sentenced and the court granted him “until .January, 5th 1905” in which to have the bill of exceptions signed by the presiding judge.” . -'

An order was made by the court, ^yn. January 5th 1905, (in vacation) extending the'tijme “until January 6th 1905.” The words “until Jaiiuary 5th” excluded that day, and consequently the time for signing the bill of exceptions expired on the night of January 4th. — Johnson v. State, 37 So. Rep. 421; A. & M. Co. v. Marcus, 128 Ala. 355; Rosson v. State, 92 Ala. 76; Wright v. State, 136 Ala. 50; Scott v. State, 37 So. Rep. 366.

The motion to strike the bill of exceptions is sustained and the judgment of the Court is affirmed.

Affirmed..

McClellan, G. J., Tyson and Andekson, J. J., concurring. /