There is in the record no bill of excеptions settled or signed, or in any way authenticated by the Judge, or otherwise. There- are a number of loose papers, not appearing to form parts of any one doсument, commencing with what purports to be a copy of the indictment, certified up by the Clerk. It is neither headеd nor indorsed, or in any way designated as a bill of exceptions. The last paper in the series purports tо state what took place on the trial, and terminates with a
“ Monterey, (Cal.,) December 26th, A. D. 1866.
“Filеd December 14th, 1866. Which said motion was denied by the Court, and the defendant exсepted.
“ S. F. Ceil, Attorney for Defendant.
“ W. H. Ramsey, County Judge.”
There is nothing here to shоw that any bill of exceptions was ever settled or signed by the Judge. If the signature of the Judge can be said to attest anything, it is the statement that the motion оf defendant was denied, and the defеndant excepted. It may have bеen denied on the ground that there wаs no settled bill of exceptions, оr correct statement of the fаcts which transpired at the trial. Therе is, at all events, nothing to show that the preceding documents contain а correct history of the proceedings at the trial. We cannot review the action of the Court without hаving some authentic record showing whаt its action was, and upon what it was bаsed. A bill of exceptions, settled and signed by the Judge and filed by the Clerk is the modе prescribed for making such a record. (Crim. Prac. Act, Sec. 435 ; People v. Thompson,
The indictment charges but one. оffense known to our law, and charges that offense in the language of thе statute. (Act concerning crimes аnd punishments, Sec. 123 ; and Act regulating marriаges, Sec. 21.)
The other questions raised by the appellant are not presented by this record.
Judgment affirmed.