Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

149 Mo. 458

State v. Gray

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided May 9, 1899

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1899-05-09

— Hon.-0. A. Anthony, Judge. ' Unless exceptions be taken and presented by the bill of exceptions to the action of the court in overruling a motion for a new trial, there is nothing before the appellate court for review except the record proper. Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 526; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196; State v. Gillum, 110 Mo. 1; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1901

2 state decisions

Relies on Ross v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad · State v. Gilmore · Danforth v. Lindell Railway Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Aeeirmed · Decided 1899-05-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BURGESS, J.

¶1Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Holt county of burglary in tbe second degree and his punishment fixed at two years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary.

¶2He appeals.

¶3"While the record shows that defendant filed his motion for a new trial within four days after verdict as required by statute, and that the motion was overruled, it does not show that any exception was taken to the action of the court in overruling the motion, so there is nothing before this court for review save and except the record proper. [Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 526; Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196; State v. Gilmore, 110 Mo. 1; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316.]

¶4The indictment is in form often approved by this court.

¶5Finding no reversible error in the record we can but affirm the judgment.

It is so ordered. Gantt, P. J., and Sherwood, J., concur.
/149/mo/458 · .json · Public domain