People v. Knoblock

HALL, J.

is an appeal by the people from an order and judgment sustaining the demurrers of defendants to an indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses.

The transcript filed in this court contains what purports to be the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions, settled on the twenty-first day of January, 1909, by George W. Cabaniss, judge of the superior court.

Respondents make the point that the transcript contains no legal record, and for this reason ask that the order and judgment be affirmed.

It is insisted that the only way in which a review of the action of the trial court in sustaining a demurrer in a criminal case can be had is upon a bill of exceptions. This is the rule laid down in

People

v.

Long

, 121 Cal. 494, [53 Pac. 1097], and which this court is obliged to follow.

(People

v.

Druffel,

3 Cal. App. 731, [86 Pac. 907].)

It is next urged that the purported bill of exceptions set forth in the transcript appears to have been settled by a judge other than the judge who made the ruling now sought to be reviewed, and for that reason cannot be considered.

[335]

Before taking up the discussion of the law as to who must settle the bill of exceptions, appellant urges that the record does not disclose that the order sustaining the demurrer was made by one judge and the bill of exceptions settled by another. Upon this point the purported bill of exceptions shows that the demurrers came on to be heard before the Honorable Carroll Cook, as judge of the superior court, and were denied and overruled on the twenty-second day of August, 1908. That thereafter the court .set this order aside, and the demurrers were reargued, and the matter was continued from day to day by the court until the second day of January, 1909, when the court entered an order sustaining the demurrers of said defendants. ' While the record does not state that Judge Cook was presiding when this order was entered, we know that Judge George W. Cabaniss, who settled the bill of .exceptions, could not have presided at that time, for he did not take office until the first Monday in January of the present year, which was January 4th. We are obliged to take notice of “the accession to office and the official signatures and seals of office of the principal officers of government in the legislative, executive and judicial departments of this state and of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 1875.)