Baker v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1893 |
| Parties | BAKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Ashland county; J. K. Parish, Judge.
E. W. Baker was convicted on a criminal charge, and brings error, and submits the following motions: (1) That this court appoint counsel for him at the public expense; (2) that a certain rule of the circuit court be waived; and (3) that the record be remitted to the circuit court, to the end that the bill of exceptions, when settled, be attached thereto, and returned to this court. First and second motions denied, and third granted.Rublee A. Cole, for plaintiff in error.
J. L. O'Connor, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Three motions are submitted in behalf of plaintiff in error. They are: (1) That this court appoint counsel for him at the public expense; (2) that rule 24 of the circuit court be waived, and that court authorized to sign the notes of the court reporter (with exhibits attached) as the bill of exceptions; and (3) that the record be remitted to the circuit court to the end that the bill of exceptions, when settled, be attached thereto, and returned to this court.
I. After the decisions of this court in State v. Williamson, 72 Wis. 61, 39 N. W. Rep. 135;State v. Wentler, 76 Wis. 89, 97, 44 N. W. Rep. 841, and 45 N. W. Rep. 816; and McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407, 50 N. W. Rep. 185,--denying similar motions, it is idle to move here for the appointment of counsel to defend, at the public expense, persons charged with crime. The first motion is denied.
II. We have no power to suspend, in a particular case, the rules of the circuit court in respect to the preparation and settlement of a bill of exceptions. Such rules have the force of a statute until abrogated by competent authority. The second motion is denied also.
III. The third motion is granted. The clerk will remit the record to the circuit court, for the purpose indicated in the motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stein v. Meyers
...rules regulating practice has been held in many other states. Gannon v. Fritz, 79 Pa. 303;Baker v. Blood, 128 Mass. 543;Baker v. State, 84 Wis. 584, 54 N. W. 1003;Hughes v. Jackson, 12 Md. 450;Detroit, G. R. & W. R. R. Co. v. Eaton, 128 Mich. 495, 87 N. W. 641;State v. Edwards, 110 N. C. 51......
-
Ott v. Boring
...the right of the litigant to invoke the exercise of such jurisdiction as we may have. Atty. Gen. v. Lum, 2 Wis. 510;Baker v. State, 84 Wis. 584, 54 N. W. 1003;Deuster v. Milw. S. R. Co., 89 Wis. 191, 194, 61 N. W. 766. True, the absolutism of rule 42 is qualified by present rule 21 reservin......
-
Collins v. Superior Court of State
... ... L. J. Cox, Mr ... Stanley A. Jerman; Messrs. Armstrong, Kramer, Morrison & ... Roche; Messrs. Beer, Walsh & Wilmer; Mr. W. F. Dains; Mr. R ... H. Brumbach; Mr. Walter J. Thalheimer; Mr. Floyd M. Stahl; ... Mr. F. C. Struckmeyer; Mr. J. E. Flynn; Messrs. Baker & ... Whitney; Mr. Lawrence L. Howe; Messrs. Ellinwood & Ross; ... Messrs. Cunningham, Carson & Gibbons; Mr. Henry H. Miller; ... Mr. Matt S. Walton; Messrs. Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith & ... Rosenfeld; Mr. Geo. D. Locke, Amici Curiae ... OPINION ... [62 P.2d 132] ... ...
-
Koschkee v. Evers
...(court cannot order lower court to do something it has no power to do because it would violate applicable statute); Baker v. State, 84 Wis. 584, 585, 54 N.W. 1003 (1893) (court has no power to suspend rules having the force of a statute until abrogated by competent authority).¶ 42 Historica......