Wiley

Wiley v. Hollzer

Good Law
72 F.2d 633·1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4638
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 29, 1934California1,814 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This is an application for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus directed to Harry A. Hollzer, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, directing him to extend the túne for the settlement of petitioner’s bill of exceptions, and to settle the bill and to extend the term for that purpose if necessary. Petitionin’ alleges that he has been tried and convicted of the crime of conspiracy and forgery in connection with the disposition of certain registered Liberty bonds issued by the United Stai.es government. He claims that, by reason of the ignorance of his attorney, and without fault on his part, the attorney failed to prepare and present his proposed bill of exceptions within the time fixed by the role of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, which rule requires the presentation of petitioner’s proposed hill of exceptions within 10 days after judgment. It is alleged that the attorney had had more than 40 years’ experience in the practice of criminal law in state and federal courts, but that this was his first appeal taken in the federal courts. It is averred that the attorney, instead of examining the rules of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.