Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 Mo. 588

State v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1870

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1870-10-15

<p>1. Practice — Supreme Court — Transcript — Cleric — Affirmance.—On super-sedeas in a criminal prosecution, where tlio clerk of the trial court sends up the transcript as required by statute (Wagn, Stat. 11M-16, $ 16), but the appellant fails to prosecute his appeal, and the judgment of the lower court appears to be regular, it will be affirmed. But the duty of bringing up the transcript is personal to the clerk, without the application of tlie accused (45 Mo. 153); exA-semble, that where respondent brings in the transcript and moves for an affirmance, on the ground that appellant has failed to file it, the motion will be overruled.</p>

Relies on State ex rel. Miller v. Daily

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1913

3 state decisions

1018701880189019001910decided

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 →

Bliss, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The defendant was convicted of gambling, in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, and fined ten dollars, and the court thereupon allowed an appeal, ordered a stay of proceedings, and took the proper recognizance. The clerk, under the provisions of section 16, pp. 1114-15, Wagner’s Statutes, sent up the transcript, but the appellant fails to prosecute his appeal by presenting a brief of the facts and points upon which he relies, or to appear at all in this court.

¶3At the last term, counsel for the State brought in the transcript and moved an affirmance of the judgment upon the ground that the appellant had not filed it; but the motion was overruled for the reason that where there is a stay of proceedings upon appeal, it is the duty of the clerk, in a criminal action, to send up a transcript without the application of the appellant. (State ex rel. Miller v. Daily, 45 Mo. 153.) But while it is the duty of the clerk to return the transcript in such cases, it is also the duty of the appellant to prosecute his appeal as in civil cases, except that no assignment of errors is required (Wagn. Stat. 1115, § 20), or the court will be at liberty to affirm the judgment.

¶4*589We are not advised in regard to the points upon which the appellant relies, and the judgment appears regular and will be affirmed.

The other judges concur.
/46/mo/588 · .json · Public domain