Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1902-01-31
THE SENTENCE IS AFFIRMED
Hall Must ssvs Thirty Years for aurdM-AppsaIs
Must 30 Duckstsd Ten Days eGfsfs Msstlag II
Supreme Court-Aneadsd After DeelstlaG.


. the territorial penitentiary. The case
has cost the county of Chaves about
} $1,000. There was a very interesting le-
gal question involved in the appeal. but
this was not touched upon by the court.
Upon the question Of practice raised
by the solicitor general the appeal waa
dismissed. Hall Is now in the peniten-
tiary serving sentence.
In the supreme court Of the territory
Of New Mexico
January Term, A. D. 1901.
The Territory Of New Mexico.
| Appellees.
William Hall. Appellant.
Appeal from district court. chaves
| county.-No. $40.
SYLLABUS.
| /. Chapter ninety-nine (99) Of the
Laws Of 1901, authorizing appellant to
| docket his appeal at any time before
motion on the part of the appellee, to
| docket and affirm judgment does not
in any manner modify or change the
practice touching the preparation, set
tling and signing of a bill Of exceptions.
2. A bill Of exceptions must be set
tied and signed ten days before the
term of the supreme court in which the
case shall first be docketed, unless. for
good and sufficient reason, the time
therefore has heen eyterdnd
8. An extension of time cannot be
granted within which a bill Of excep-
tions may be settled and signed, after
ten days before the term of the supreme
court in which the case shall first be
docketed.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
The appellant was tried and convic-
ted upon indictment for murder, In
the latter part Of November. 1901. In
the Lincoln district court. A motion
for q new trial was denied, and appeal
allowed. The appellant was delayed in
preparing exceptions, by reason Of his
inability to secure, at an early day, a
transcript Of the stenographer's min
=
minutes were received. he prepared and
presented to the district Judge who
presided at the trial bill Of exception
which the Judge sealed and signed on
the 4th day Of January, 1902, and there
upon appellant filed such bill Of ex-
ceptions in the office of the clerk Of the
5th judicial district. and procured q
certified copy thereof to be filed with
the clerk Of this court on the 9th In.
stant.
On the same day the appellee filed .
motion to dismiss the appeal. First, on
the ground that the transcript Of rec
ord was not filed in this court. as pre-
scribed by law, within ten days before
the first day Of the present term. to
which said appeal was returnable; Sec
ond. that the trial Judge did not settle
or sign the alleged bill Of exceptions in
said transcript at least ten days before
the term Of the supreme court in which
said cause shall be docketed; third.
that said bill Of exceptions was not
presented to said Judge by appellant to
be settled and signed within ten days
prior to the opening Of the present term
of court, nor was the said trial Judge
asked to, nor did he, enlarge the time
for such filing.
The regular term Of this court for the
year 1902 began on the 9Th day Of jan
uary. inst.
Freeman and Cameron, attorneys for
appellant.
Edward L. Bartlett, Solicitor General,
for appellee.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
Per Curiam.
BY the provisions Of Chapter Of the
Laws of 1889. a party may prepare .
bill Of exceptions 20 days before the
first day of the term Of the supreme
court. and give five days. notice to the
party, who has five days to
propose amendments thereto, and the
fudge settle and sign the exceptions
ten days before the term Of the su.
oreme court in which the case shall
first be docketed unless for good ana
sufficient reason the time therefor has
been extended.
In this case no application was made
,or an extension Of time and none was
granted. The bill Of exceptions was
irst presented to the Judge for his sig
nature on the 4th instant, and was BY
lim settled and signed on that date.
This court has held that motion to
strike out bill Of exceptions under IN
appeal taken In a criminal case, when
said bill was signed and sealed by the
rial Judge at a day later than that, al.
owed by the statute, to wit, ten dayu
before return term, will be sustained:
he statute Is mandatory. and tho
Judge exceeds his authority In such
,ase in settling the bill at such time.
Haynes v. United States. 50 pac. Rep.
's2. -
It would seem that this decision,
which settles the law and practice =
ar as this territory 10 concerned, +