Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

109 Mo. 292

State v. Henderson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1891

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1891-10-15

— Hon. J. A. Hockaday, Judge. No exception was taken, or objection saved, to the action of the court in sustaining the motion to quash the indictment, and, hence, the judgment should be affirmed.

Relies on Abbott v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad · State v. Wall · State v. Vincent

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1891-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1910

7 state decisions

40189119001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Thomas, J.

¶1The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Callaway county for wilfully failing to keep and render a true account of the fees received by him in his official capacity as clerk of the county court of said county, and for wilfully failing to pay into the treasury of said county fees, alleged to have been received by him as such clerk, in excess of the compensation allowed him by law. The defendant filed his motion to quash the indictment, which, being sustained, the state has brought the case here' by appeal.

¶2*293The rule in this state is well settled that a motion to quash an indictment does not constitute a part of the record proper, and the motion in this case, not having been preserved by bill of exceptions, we cannot review the action of the court below in sustaining it. State v. Wall, 15 Mo. 208; State v. Gee, 79 Mo. 313; State v. Thurston, 83 Mo. 271; State v. Vincent, 91 Mo. 662.

¶3The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

All concur.
/109/mo/292 · .json · Public domain