This appellant was convicted of destroying State property. He, according to the Attorney General in brief, attempted to obtain a free transcript of the evidence under Act No. 62, approved September 15, 1961.
The court below denied "his motion for an allowance to prosecute this cause of action to the Court of Appeals." The order fails to specify the reasons. Section 6 of Act No. 62, supra, provides therefor.
Inasmuch as the appellant's petition lacks, among other things, compliance with § 4 of Act No. 62, supra, we treat the failure of the court's order to give reasons for denying the petition as harmless error. Supreme Court Rule 45.
The specification of errors required to be put in the sworn petition under the requirements of § 4, supra, are:
The sworn petition (taking Pogolick's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his notice of appeal together) avers no facts claimed to show error. Rather the specification purports to adopt the Socratic method in averment:
Several other questions posed in leading form are asked. Since the questions are not premised on matters of common knowledge, this method is not proper here.
Nowhere is there any positive statement—under the penalties of perjury—of action by the trial court which could be the foundation for a claim under § 4, supra. Thus,
The record proper is regular and the judgment below is due to be