State v. Rolley

Decided November 20, 1896

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1896-11-20

— Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge. There is nothing in the entire transcript to show that the hill of exceptions was ever filed. If filed during term time, the record entry must show it; if filed at any time after the adjournment of the term, the in-dorsement must appear upon the bill of exceptions; neither appear from this record; hence this appeal must be determined from the record proper. Lafollette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199.

Relies on Lafollette v. Thompson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1896-11-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 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 →

Sherwood, J.

¶1The defendant, indicted for and convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, and his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary, appeals to this court.

¶2The defendant is not represented in this court by counsel and so we have examined the record. The indictment is in proper form, but it does not appear from the record nor from an indorsement upon it by the clerk, that the bill of exceptions was ever filed. In such circumstances, the supposed bill must be disre*678garded as not being properly authenticated. Lafollette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199.

¶3As there is no error in the record proper, we affirm the judgment.

All concur.