Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

228 Mo. 478

State v. Borders

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided May 26, 1910

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1910-05-26

- — Hon. Jos. J. Williams, Judge. (1) The information is valid and sufficient; it concisely presents the charge in the language of the statute, and is good under the common law. R. S. 1899, sec. 1875; State v. Moore, 61 Mo. 276; State v. Hunt, 190 Mo. 359. (2) The bill of exceptions is not authenticated or identified. The part of the record that should have been denominated the bill of exceptions is intermingled with the record proper.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1914

1 state decisions

Relies on Ricketts v. Hart · Lafollette v. Thompson · Roush v. Cunningham

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed, · Decided 1910-05-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

POX, J.

¶1The defendant, under an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Iron county, charging him with arson, was found guilty of arson in the third degree, and his punishment assessed by the jury at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed by the defendant and overruled by the court, judgment entered of record, and an appeal allowed defendant to this court.

¶2*480The defendant is not represented in this court, but an examination of the record fails to show that what is termed thfe bill of exceptions was ever filed; nor is there any certificate of the clerk on the bill, indicating the fact and date of filing.

¶3In Lafollette v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 199, this court said: “There must be an entry of record to make a bill of exceptions a part of the record. This is indispensable in term time- When leave is granted, with consent of parties, to file a bill in vacation, there must be some certificate on the bill itself, signed by the clerk, indicating the fact and date of filing, or some entry made by the clerk in the- records of the court to that effect.” This rule has been stated and approved many times. [Roush v. Cunningham, 163 Mo. 173; Wilson v. Railroad, 167 Mo. 323; State v. Rolley, 135 Mo. 677; Ricketts v. Hart, 150 Mo. 64; Williams v. Williams, 26 Mo. App. 408, and other cases.]

¶4The purported bill of exceptions must be disregarded as not being properly authenticated. We have examined the record proper, and find no error therein. The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
/228/mo/478 · .json · Public domain