State v. Harroun
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Bobt. M. Foster, Judge. There is nothing before this court except the record proper. No hill of exceptions was filed at the same term at which the motion for a new trial was overruled; and no leave was given at that term to file a bill. The failure to thus file a hill of exceptions, or to take leave to .file same, deprives this court of the power to review the proceedings during the trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Bobt. M. Foster, Judge. There is nothing before this court except the record proper. No hill of exceptions was filed at the same term at which the motion for a new trial was overruled; and no leave was given at that term to file a bill. The failure to thus file a hill of exceptions, or to take leave to .file same, deprives this court of the power to review the proceedings during the trial. State v. Goehler, 193 Mo. 177; State v. Larew, 191 Mo. 192; State v. Miller, 189 Mo”*. 673.
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction for grand larceny in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis.
The record discloses that on May 2, 1906, the assistant circuit attorney of St. Louis filed an information, duly verified, charging the defendant with grand larceny. The name of the prosecuting witness is Frank Hughes, and the property alleged to have been stolen was forty-nine dollars in money and a gold watch of the value of six dollars. The offense is alleged to have been committed on April 11,1905. It also appears from the record…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. LarewSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- State v. GoehlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- State v. AmmonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909