ARK.] SUTTON V. --LITTLE ROCK. 603 SUTTON V. LITTLE ROCK. • Cr. 3962 • Opinion delivered November 4, 1935. 1. MA NDAMUS—JURISDICTION.—The Supreme Court, on appeal from a conviction of violating a municipal ordinance, has no jurisdiction to compel the stenographer of the circuit court to file, without expense to the accused, a transcript of his notes in the proceedings in the circuit court. MANDANws—JumsMcrIoN.--Where the court stenographer refused to furnish a transcript of his notes in a criminal case in the circuit court, the remedy of the accused was an application for mandamus in the circuit court. Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First . Division ; Abner McGehee, Judge ; rehearing . denied. John F. Clifford and S. W. Trimble, for appellant. PER CuRIAM. Appellant was duly convicted in the municipal court of Little Rock for the violation of a city ordinance, and appealed to the circuit court of. Pulaski County, whereupon trial to a jury he Was again convicted and fined in the sum of $500., .Copies of the judgments have been duly filed in this court as a basis for appeal, but no bill. of exceptions has been filed fOr . the reasons hereinafter stated. .. On a previous day' of this term we had under consideration appellant's motion for a writ of certiorari or mandamus or some other appropriate writ, requiring the, circuit clerk, the circuit judge or the stenographer of the Pulaski Circuit Court to, make and furnish without cost a bill of exceptions for review in this court on ap— peal. Neither the circuit clerk, the circuit judge nor, the stenographer were made parties or , appeared in this court in response thereto, therefore u pon due cOnsideration the prayer of said motion _was denied without-written opinion. We are now asked by petition for rehearing
604 [191 to reView our previous finding, and to now grant the appropriate writ. The original petition shows that the circuit court stenographer has refused to prepare and file a transcription of his notes of the proceedings appealed from by appellant ; therefore a writ of certiorari against the clerk, even if he were before tbe court, would be unavailing, and we expiessly held in Ex parte Whitley, 113 Ark. 372, 168 S. W. 144, that this court was without power to compel a circurtcourt stenographer to prepare and file a transcription of his notes . of • the proceedings reported by him in the circuit court. Therefore, were the stenographer a party to this proceeding, we would be without power to 'compel a transéription or filing of such transcription. Appellant's 'only remedy in this cas0 is by mandamus in the. circuit court and against the stenographer thereof to ,compel . thd stenographer to prepare and file a transcription of the proceedings had and done in the cause, and, since no such proceeding is before-us for review, we pretermit any discussion of the mei:its of apPellant's &intentions.. The petition for rehearin g' will therefore be denied.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.