No. 21776
Precedential
Affirmed.
Processed
State v. Matassa
State v. Matassa, 71 So. 190 (La. 1916).
Cited by
- Hebert v. T. L. James & Co. 70 So. 2d 102 La. 1953
- Hebert v. T. L. James & Co. 64 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Latino 138 La. 14
- State v. Miller 138 La. 373
Opinion text
SOMMERVILLE, J. [1] The record contains no bill of exceptions or assignment of errors on the face of the record. [2] There is a motion for a new trial found in the record, which is unsworn to, and which was overruled; and the minutes recite that: “Counsel for defendant excepts and reserves a bill.” But no bill of exceptions was filed. “A notation by the clerk of court in a criminal case that the defendant excepted and reserved a bill cannot be considered a ‘bill of exceptions.’ ” State v. Latino, 138 La. 14 , 69 South. 857 ; State v. Miller, 138 La. 373 , 70 South. 330 , and authorities therein cited. Judgment affirmed.