State v. Carter

State v. Carter. Habeas Corpus. (Decided January 16, 1913. 60 South. 941.) 1. Criminal Law; Appeal V.ij State; Sufficiency; Bill. — A question of petitioner’s right to hail is one of law arising on the evidence, and, as such a question so arising does not “distinctly appear on the record,” within the meaning of section 6243, Code 1907, it must he reserved by hill of exceptions to he presented for review on appeal. 2. Appeal and Error; Reservation; Method. — The reservation of the question as to whether or not the ruling of the magistrate in allowing bail on the evidence adduced must he presented by hill of exceptions showing that an exception was reserved to the ruling or decision when rendered. The hill of exceptions examined and held not to show such a reservation as presents for review the ruling on the evidence in admitting defendant to bail. Aiteae from Conecuh Probate Court. Heard before I-Ion. F. J. Dean. Application of Martin Carter to be allowed bail. From a decree granting bail and fixing the amount, the .state appeals. Affirmed. #N. 0. Niue keel, Attorney General, W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, and C. B. Beioken, Solicitor, for the State. No brief reached the Beporter. James A. Stadiayoetii, for appellee. The transcript shows no exceptions reserved to any action or ruling of the court- below or to the judgment, and hence, there is nothing presented for review. — Hurd. v. City of Troy, 54 South. 495. The cause should be affirmed. — State v. Dixon, 59 South. 313; State v. Cole, 59 South. 681; State v. Lacy, 158 Ala. 16. [MAJORITY — WALKER, P. J.] WALKER, P. J. What is called the bill of exceptions sets out the evidence offered on the hearing of appellee’s application for bail, and the ruling of the examining magistrate allowing hail and prescribing the amount thereof, but does not show that any exception Avas reserved by the prosecution to that or any other ruling made. The question of the petitioner’s right to be admitted to bail Avas one of laAV arising on the evidence adduced. As a question of law so arising does not “distinctly appear on the record,” within the meaning of the statute, it must, to he presented for revieAV on appeal, “be reserved by bill of exceptions.” — Code, § 6243. Such reservation is made by excepting to the ruling or decision Avhen rendered. — Ex parte Knight, 61 Ala. 482; Hurd v. City of Troy, 170 Ala. 113, 54 South. 495; 3 Ency. of Pleading and Practice, 412. A question arising on the evidence being one the reservation of Avhich for the consideration of a revising court is appropriate to be sIioavu by a bill of exceptions, and the bill of exceptions in this case not shoAving such reservation of the question, it is not presented for review by the mere setting put of the evidence and of the ruling of the court on it. This being true, and the record proper disclosing no error, the order or judgment appealed from must be affirmed. Affirmed.