Case Name: Morris F. Luff v. State of Ohio
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 164
Docket Number: No. 18700
Parties: Morris F. Luff v. State of Ohio.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Jones, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 164–164

Head Matter:
No. 18700
Morris F. Luff v. State of Ohio.
Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
148. BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS—1. Requirements of statute as to duties of a party as to, are mandatory, but as to Judges are, directory.
2. Not available in a criminal case unless filed within the time fixed by the Court, which cannot be more than 30 days from overruling motion for new trial.
3. If not so filed, and the errors charged are such as can be disclosed only by a bill, the judgment must be affirmed.

Opinion:
MATTHIAS, J.
1. Although the provisions of the statute defining the duties of the clerk and .trial judge with respect to a bill of exceptions are directory, the requirements thereof relative to the duties of a party are mandatory in. character and must be performed in the manner and within the time prescribed by statute.
2. In the prosecution of error by a defendant from an adverse verdict and judgment in a criminal case in the court of common pleas a bill of exceptions is not available unless filed therein within the time fixed by that court, which, under the provisions of Section 13680, General Code, as amended April 5, 1923 (110 O.L., 301), cannot be more than thirty days from the overruling of the motion for a new trial.
3. Where such bill of exceptions is not filed in the trial court within the time so prescribed, and the errors charged are such as can be disclosed only by a bill of exceptions, the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Marshall, C. J., Jones, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.