Lapique

Application to this court to settle a hill of exceptions which it is claimed the trial judge refused to settle. It is, in effect, a renewal of a former application (Civil No. 576) by petitioner, which was treated as a petition for a writ of mandate in order that the court might have jurisdiction to consider the matter. Then, as now, petitioner was seeking to ■ compel the trial judge to settle a particular bill of exceptions presented by himself. (People v. Lapique, ante, p. 56, [ 98 Pac. 46 ].)

For this reason this petition was at first treated as an application for a writ of mandate, and petitioner was required to pay the clerk’s fees necessary to be paid in such a proceeding.

A more careful examination of the petition and papers accompanying it discloses that another bill of exceptions has been settled and allowed by the trial judge since the former application was heard, but it cannot be determined from the record before us whether that bill of exceptions was settled and allowed in accordance with sections 1175 and 1177 of the Penal Code or not. Neither can we determine from the petition whether, by the settlement of the bill which was settled, petitioner was denied the right…