State v. Baker

Decided November 19, 1907

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1907-11-19

— How. Wm. .N. Evans, Judge. The hill of exceptions does mot contain the motion for a new trial nor the motion in arrest of judgment; neither were exceptions saved to the overruling of said motions. There is, therefore, nothing before this court, ■except the record proper. State v. Reed, 89 Mo. 168; State v. Irwin, 171 Mo. 558.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1908

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1907-11-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BURGESS, J.

¶1Under an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Howell county in the circuit court of said county the defendant was convicted of oh-*696taming property under false pretenses, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years. After unavailing motions for a new trial and in arrest, defendant appealed.

¶2The defendant is not represented in this court, but upon examination of the record we find that no exception was taken and saved to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. By a long line of decisions of this court it has been held that unless an exception be taken at the time the motion is overruled, and saved by hill of exceptions, the action of the court is not the subject of review by this court. [State v. Parnell, infra, 723.]

¶3The record proper appears to he free from error, and the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.