State v. Clark

Decided January 31, 1894

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1894-01-31

— Hon. E. F. Eoy, Judge. It was the duty of the court to instruct on the whole case (E. S. 1889, sec. 4208), and this whether asked or not. State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 573; State v. Bramlette, 65 Mo. 154; State v. Banks, 73 Mo. 597; State v. Schloss, 93 Mo. 365. The court will not consider the bill of exceptions in this cause. State v. Britt, 117 Mo. 584; State v. Apperson, 115 Mo. 470; State v. Mosley, 116 Mo. 545; State v. Seaton, 106 Mo. 198.

Relies on State v. Apperson · State v. Seaton · State v. Mosley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1894-01-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1910

5 state decisions

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 →

Buegess, J.

¶1At the May term, 1893, of the common pleas court of Marion county, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to kill; his punishment fixed at seven years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary and he appealed to this court.

¶2On the twelfth day of May, 1893, by an order entered of record in said court defendant was given until the first day of August next thereafter in which to file his bill of exceptions but which was not filed until the thirty-first day of August.

¶3As the bill of exceptions was filed out of time there is nothing before this court for review except what may appear from the record proper. State v. Apperson, 115 Mo. 470; State v. Seaton, 106 Mo. 198; State v. Britt, 117 Mo. 584; State v. Mosley, 116 Mo. 545. Since there is no bill of exceptions and no error in the record proper, we affirm the judgment.

All concur.