Walker v. Superior Court

Criminal Law—Conviction of Embezzlement—Order Denying New Trial—Arraignment—Appeal from Second Order—Bill of Exceptions.—Where, after a conviction of embezzlement, a motion for a new trial was made and denied, and not appealed from, but the defendant was not properly arraigned before judgment, and upon a subsequent appeal, taken more than a year thereafter, the cause was remanded, with directions to arraign the defendant for judgment, which was done, whereupon the defendant again moved for a new trial, and appealed from a second order denying the motion, the trial court can only be required to settle a bill of exceptions, setting forth both the proceedings had upon the former motion and those had upon the latter motion.

Id.—Appeal from Judgment—Bill of Exceptions—Mandamus.—A bill of exceptions upon appeal from the judgment should only set forth so much of the evidence as is necessary to explain the errors of law relied upon, and where the only demand made was for the settlement of a bill of exceptions containing all the evidence in the case, such demand was properly refused, and where the court expressed its willingness to settle a proper bill of exceptions, mandamus will not lie to compel the settlement thereof.