Hagin v. Cohen

BRICICGN, J. An affirmance of the judgment in this case must be ordered, as th$ purported bill of exceptions does not bear the necessary indorsement that it was signed by the judge who tried the case. The following indorsements by the judge are shown: “Comes now the defendant and presents this his bill of exceptions and asks that the same be signed according to the law for presentation to the Court of Appeals at the next term thereof. This the 6th day of July, 1918. J. E. Blackwood, Judge.” “The above bill of exceptions was presented to me oh this the 6th day of July, 1918. J. E. Blackwood, Judge.” ¿ Both of these indorsements show simply the presentation to the trial judge. But nei *53 ther of the indorsements shows the signing of the bill of exceptions as required by section 3019 of the Code of 1907. We are therefore without authority to consider the so-called Jiill of exceptions; for, in the absence of the signature of the presiding judge, it is in fact no bill of exceptions. Waddell v. State, 15 Ala. App. 597, 74 South. 726. The assignments of error are based prin'cipally upon rulings of the court as shown by the bill of exceptions. Other rulings of the court assigned as error have been examined, but no error is shown prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed.