Westerdale v. State
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | ROBINS, J. |
| Citation | Westerdale v. State, 168 S.W.2d 615, 205 Ark. 100 (Ark. 1943) |
| Decision Date | 18 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | 4276 |
| Parties | WESTERDALE v. STATE |
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; Minor W. Millwee, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Alfred Featherston and O. A. Brewer, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The appellant, Clyde Westerdale, was found guilty by a jury in the lower court of the offense of removing property subject to a lien with the intent to defraud the holder of the lien and has appealed from a judgment entered on this verdict.
The Attorney General challenges the validity of the bill of exceptions embraced in the transcript in this case on the ground that it was not filed within the time fixed by the court. No error is shown in any part of the record not embraced in the bill of exceptions, so that, if, by reason of the invalidity of the bill of exceptions, we are precluded from considering that part of the record shown by the bill of exceptions, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.
The judgment in this case was rendered on September 2, 1942, and on the same day appellant's motion for new trial was overruled and the appellant granted forty-five days within which to prepare and file bill of exceptions. On October 8 1942, the attorney for the appellant wrote to the official stenographer requesting that her shorthand record of the trial be transcribed and filed. This request was refused by the stenographer on the ground that she had not been paid for making this record. The appellant did not file with the stenographer, nor with the clerk of the court, any oath to the effect that he had no property and was unable to pay the stenographer's fee. On October 26, 1942, the appellant's attorney filed a verified petition with the judge of the lower court setting forth that the appellant was absent from the state and had no property within the State of Arkansas subject to execution, and praying that the court stenographer be required to transcribe immediately her notes and file the transcript thereof in the office of the clerk. On the hearing of this petition the court stenographer testified that she was not willing to file the transcript unless she was paid the statutory fees, and stated that the defendant, on the trial, was represented by two lawyers and had testified that he was the owner of sawmills in Oklahoma. The lower court refused to order the stenographer to file transcript of her notes. The time for filing bill of exceptions as fixed by the court expired on October 17, 1942. The bill of exceptions contained in the record herein was not filed with the clerk of the lower court until November 2, 1942, and appears to have been approved by the trial judge on November 17, 1942.
It is provided by § 2876 of Pope's Digest of the laws of Arkansas as...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Waters
... ... mentally incapacitated since 1926. [ 3 ] ... [205 ... Ark. 94] The question was objected to because it did not ... state facts as reflected by the evidence ... [167 S.W.2d 890] ... There were other grounds of objection which are not ... controlling ... ...
-
Royal v. State
... ... 613, 211 S.W. 664; Nix v. State, ... 190 Ark. 1177, 81 S.W.2d 15; Williams v ... State, 192 Ark. 1178, 92 S.W.2d 658; ... Boatright v. State, 195 Ark. 611, 113 ... S.W.2d 107; McCarty v. State, 202 Ark. 954, ... 154 S.W.2d 594; Chandler v. State, 205 Ark ... 74, 167 S.W.2d 142; Westerdale v. State, ... 205 Ark. 100, 168 S.W.2d 615; French v ... State, 205 Ark. 386, 168 S.W.2d 829 ... Appellant's ... only insistence for reversal is that the evidence against him ... in the lower ... [199 S.W.2d 745] ... court was insufficient to establish his guilt. Since ... ...
-
Cain v. State
... ... 48] court is not properly a part of the record and cannot be ... considered on appeal. Austin v. State, 183 ... Ark. 481, 36 S.W.2d 400; Boatright v ... State, 195 Ark. 611, 113 S.W.2d 107; ... Chandler v. State, 167 S.W.2d 142; ... Westerdale v. State, 205 Ark. 100, 168 ... S.W.2d 615; Caldwell v. State, ... ante, p. 19, 168 S.W.2d 807; French v ... State, 205 Ark. 386, 168 S.W.2d 829. Applying this ... rule in the case at bar it must be held that the purported ... bill of exceptions shown in the transcript cannot be ... ...
-
Lumpkin v. Shofner
... ... the minute I saw the taxicab's ... lights there at my side, I put on my brakes." ... Clayton ... Northcutt, of the state police force, testified regarding his ... investigation of the collision. The wreck, which he did not ... see, occurred near the center of Garland ... ...