State v. Gordon
Supreme Court of Missouri
.Appeal from Lafayette Criminal Gowrt. — Hon. John E. ! Ryland, Judge. This court can consider nothing in this case except the record proper, on which the judgment should be affirmed. Neither the motion for new trial, nor any exceptions to the overruling of same, are contained in, referred to, or called for, in the bill of exceptions.
Read the full summary
.Appeal from Lafayette Criminal Gowrt. — Hon. John E. ! Ryland, Judge. This court can consider nothing in this case except the record proper, on which the judgment should be affirmed. Neither the motion for new trial, nor any exceptions to the overruling of same, are contained in, referred to, or called for, in the bill of exceptions. Arnold v. Boyer, 108 Mo. 310; State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. •672, and cases cited; Railroad v. Carlisle, 94 Mo. 166; State v. Burckhartt, 83 Mo. 430; State v. Gaither, 77 Mo. 305. This being true, no exceptions are saved or presented to this court to any matters that…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
— The defendant was indicted at the October term, 1891, in the criminal court of Lafayette county for an assault with intent to kill, and was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years.
No brief has been filed in this court. We have examined the record and find no error in the record proper. After the defendant had been sentenced and granted his appeal, leave was given to file a bill of exceptions in sixty days and this was done ‘ ‘in vacation on the ninth of July, 1892. ”
The record proper recites the filing of motions for new trial and in arrest, but the bill of exceptious in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. CritesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908