Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 Mo. 559

State v. Scott

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 31, 1893

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1893-01-31

— Hon. Joseph Cbavens, Judge. The hill was signed and filed out of time; and it was not even in the power of the judge to grant a further extension after the first extended time had expired. State v. Hill, 98 Mo. 570.

Relies on State v. Meyers · State v. Griffin · State v. McDonald

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Extend”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1893-01-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2003

15 state decisions

40189319001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

Sherwood, J.

¶1The defendant, a negro, appeals from a conviction of an assault with intent to ravish a white woman, his punishment being assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of five years.

¶2Under the provisions of section 2168, Revised Statutes, 1889, a bill of “exceptions may be written and filed at the time or during the term of the court at which it is taken, or within such time thereafter as the court may by an order entered of record allow, which may be extended by the court or judge in vacation for good cause shown.” This section is found in the chapter relating to “civil procedure,” but it is provided in the chapter relating to “practice and proceedings” in criminal cases that the same steps are to be taken in regard to bills of exceptions in criminal cases as in civil cases. Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 4221; State v. McDonald, 85 Mo. 539, and cases cited; State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. 672; State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107.

¶3*561In this case then on the twenty-second day of Jan-nary, 1892, the trial court granted the defendant sixty days from that date in which to file his bill of exceptions; bnt the bill was not filed within that time. This being the case, it was clearly out of the power of the circuit judge on the seventh day of June, in vacation, to make an order extending the time for filing the bill of exceptions until the tenth of that month. This is not what the statute means. The word “extended” as employed in this statute means “prolongedand of course a prolongation of time cannot occur after the time originally limited has expired.

¶4This view of the matter results in holding that there is no bill of exceptions preserved, and, since there is no error in the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.
/113/mo/559 · .json · Public domain