Case ID: ala_146/html/0157-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DENSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Davis et al. v. The State.
    (Decided May 17th, 1906.
    41 So. Rep. 298.)
    
      Criminal Law; Appeal; Bill of Exceptions. — A hill of exceptions signed after the expiration of the 60 days allowed hy the Act of Jan. 23rd, 1891, (Acts 1890-91, p. 227), and after the.commencement of the next term of the trial court, cannot he considered, although within the time of the extension agreed on hy counsel.
    Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court. '
    Heard before Hon. D. A. Greene.
    The defendant was indicted for knowingly or willfully driving an animal running at large in a district where it was lawful for such animal to run at large into a district in said county where it was not lawful for said animals to run at large with the intention that said animal should be impounded. Trial was had and conviction obtained on Nov. 16th, 1905, and an order entered granting sixty days for signing bill of exception. On Jan. 15th, 1906, the solicitor and attorney for defendant entered into an agreement extending the time another thirty days, and the hill was approved Feb. 12th, 1906.
    E. D. Smith and J. Q. Smith, for appellants.
    Counsel discussed matters shown in bill of exceptions, but do not discuss the point decided.
    
      Massey Widson, Attorney General, for the State.
    The bill of exceptions cannot be considered, for any purpose. The time granted by the court expired Jan. 16, after the expiration of the trial term, and the extension of time was made by an agreement of counsel. The bill cannot be considered for any purpose. — Adams v. TVcState, 40 So. Rep. 85.
   DENSON, J.

On the authority of the case of Adams v. State, 40 So. Rep. 85, the paper in the record, purporting to be a bill of exceptions must be stricken.

With the bill of exceptions out no question remains for our consideration. There being no error apparent in the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, Simpson and Anderson, JJ., concur.