¶1The defendant was indicted in Caldwell county for an assault with intent to kill Ed Nichols. He was tried and convicted, and from the sentence imposed has appealed to this court. The defendant is not represented in this court, and has filed no *2brief, but under the statute we have been required to go through the whole record to ascertain if prejudicial error was committed against him. We find that no exception was taken or saved to the overruling of his motion for a new trial, and we' are therefore restricted to the record proper. [State v. Weinegard, 168 Mo. 490.] The indictment is in due form; the arraignment, regular; and the summoning and impaneling of the jury, and the return of the verdict and sentence thereon are in all respects in proper form. The judgment is affirmed.
178 Mo. 1
State v. Dunham
Decided November 17, 1903
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1903-11-17
<p>Appeals: no bill of exceptions. Where no exception is saved to the. overruling of a motion for a new trial, there is nothing for review except the record proper, and that being free from error, the judgment will be affirmed.</p>
Relies on State v. Weinegard
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1903-11-17
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1924
9 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 →