Case ID: colo_53/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Garrigues", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 7712.]
    Camelin v. Smith.
    1. Bill of Exceptions — Who May Authenticate — A. bill of 'exceptions signed by the successor in office of the judge presiding at the trial, stricken from the record.
    2. New Trial — Who May Allow — By the weight of authority the successor in office of the judge before whom a cause was tried, may decide a. motion for a new trial, in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary. ' '
    
      Error to• Sedgwick County Court. — Hon. R. J. DobBee, Judge.
    Mr. A. F. Perrier and Mr. E. C. Stimson, for plaintiff in error.
    Messrs. Rorfson & Hendricks, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Garrigues

delivered the opinion of the court:

1. An examination of the purported bill of exceptions, shows that it was signed by the succeeding- judge, and not by the trial judge. The motion to strike it from the files will therefore be sustained. — Feckheimer v. Trounstien, 12 Colo. 282; Empire L. & C. Co. v. Engley, 14 Colo. 289; Water Supply Co. v. Tenney, 21 Colo. 284.

2. The remaining question, is whether the succeeding judge should, as a matter of right, have sustained the motion for a new trial. By the weight of modern authority, the succeeding judge, presiding over the same court, may decide a motion for a new trial in the absence of a statute to the contrary. — People ex rel. Hambel v. McConnell, 155 Ill. 192.

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Campbell and Mr. Justice Musser concur.