72 P. 1 (Or. 1903), Hayes v. Clifford

Citation:72 P. 1, 42 Or. 568
Opinion Judge:MOORE, C.J.
Party Name:HAYES v. CLIFFORD, Judge.
Attorney:W.H. Holmes, for plaintiff. Morton D. Clifford, in pro. per.
Case Date:April 15, 1903
Court:Supreme Court of Oregon

Page 1

72 P. 1 (Or. 1903)

42 Or. 568

HAYES

v.

CLIFFORD, Judge.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 15, 1903

Petition for a writ of mandamus by George W. Hayes against Morton D. Clifford, judge of the Ninth Judicial District. Dismissed.

W.H. Holmes, for plaintiff.

Morton D. Clifford, in pro. per.

MOORE, C.J.

This is a special proceeding, instituted in this court April 2, 1903, to compel the judge of the Ninth Judicial District to settle and sign a bill of exceptions. It is alleged, in substance, in the alternative writ of mandamus, that on May 6, 1902, the plaintiff, George W. Hayes, having been convicted in the circuit court for Harney county of the crime of adultery, was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of one year; that, desiring to review said judgment, he caused to be prepared a notice of appeal, which was ready for service, and employed counsel to conduct the cause in this court; that he had incurred great expense in securing a full and correct transcript of the testimony, which had been extended by the official reporter from stenographic notes taken at the trial; that he had prepared a bill of exceptions, pointing out in a succinct manner[42 Or. 569] the errors relied upon to secure a reversal of the judgment, a copy of which is attached to his petition, which proposed bill is a true and correct statement of what occurred at the trial; that on March 28, 1903, his attorney presented said bill of exceptions to the defendant, and requested him to allow and sign it, but he declined to do so, whereupon the said writ was sued out, requiring him to settle, allow, certify, and sign said bill of exceptions, or to show cause at the time appointed, if any he had, why he had not done so. The defendant, for answer, states, in effect, that during the trial of the criminal action numerous exceptions to the rulings of the court were taken, but not then reduced to writing, nor was any extension of time sought by the plaintiff in which to prepare and present a bill of exceptions; that, when the time for passing sentence upon him had arrived, his attorneys stated in open court that they did not intend to present a bill of exceptions or take an appeal, whereupon he was sentenced as above stated, and immediately thereafter incarcerated in the penitentiary, from which he was released after having served about eight months; that the defendant never had an...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
6 practice notes
  • 110 P. 412 (Or. 1910), Harding v. Oregon-Idaho Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 26 Julio 1910
    ...the judge from thereafter signing it, if otherwise proper. For a general review of the Oregon cases on this subject, see Hayes v. Clifford, 42 Or. 568, 72 P. 1. The service and filing of the notice of appeal, and the execution and service of the undertaking thereon, does not of itself depri......
  • 307 P.2d 528 (Or. 1957), Fields v. Fields
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 21 Febrero 1957
    ...clerk. The decisions indicate Page 531 that the practice was to present or tender the bill directly to the trial judge. Hayes v. Clifford, 42 Or. 568, 72 P. 1, was a case in which the plaintiff brought mandamus against the trial judge to compel him to sign a bill of exceptions. The attorney......
  • 206 P. 290 (Or. 1922), State v. Laundy
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 11 Abril 1922
    ...prevent the presumption of acquiescence, the objector must ordinarily express his nonacquiescence. Section 169, Or. L.; Hayes v. Clifford, 42 Or. 568, 72 P. 1; Fornof v. Wilkinsburg Borough, 238 Pa. 614, 86 A. 494; 3 C.J. 894; 8 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 157; 2 R. C. L. 92. No particular form is r......
  • 408 P.2d 697 (Kan. 1965), 44227, Grohusky v. Atlas Assur. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 11 Diciembre 1965
    ...'wantonness,' as here used, does not necessarily mean malice, but a reckless disregard of the rights of others.' (66 Kan. 1. c. 662, 663, 72 P. 1. c. 284.) 'In Allman v. Bird, 186 Kan. 802, 353 P.2d 216, rules relating to the allowance of punitive damages, the purposes for which they are al......
  • Free signup to view additional results
6 cases
  • 110 P. 412 (Or. 1910), Harding v. Oregon-Idaho Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 26 Julio 1910
    ...the judge from thereafter signing it, if otherwise proper. For a general review of the Oregon cases on this subject, see Hayes v. Clifford, 42 Or. 568, 72 P. 1. The service and filing of the notice of appeal, and the execution and service of the undertaking thereon, does not of itself depri......
  • 307 P.2d 528 (Or. 1957), Fields v. Fields
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 21 Febrero 1957
    ...clerk. The decisions indicate Page 531 that the practice was to present or tender the bill directly to the trial judge. Hayes v. Clifford, 42 Or. 568, 72 P. 1, was a case in which the plaintiff brought mandamus against the trial judge to compel him to sign a bill of exceptions. The attorney......
  • 206 P. 290 (Or. 1922), State v. Laundy
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 11 Abril 1922
    ...prevent the presumption of acquiescence, the objector must ordinarily express his nonacquiescence. Section 169, Or. L.; Hayes v. Clifford, 42 Or. 568, 72 P. 1; Fornof v. Wilkinsburg Borough, 238 Pa. 614, 86 A. 494; 3 C.J. 894; 8 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 157; 2 R. C. L. 92. No particular form is r......
  • 408 P.2d 697 (Kan. 1965), 44227, Grohusky v. Atlas Assur. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 11 Diciembre 1965
    ...'wantonness,' as here used, does not necessarily mean malice, but a reckless disregard of the rights of others.' (66 Kan. 1. c. 662, 663, 72 P. 1. c. 284.) 'In Allman v. Bird, 186 Kan. 802, 353 P.2d 216, rules relating to the allowance of punitive damages, the purposes for which they are al......
  • Free signup to view additional results