State v. Foley

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Foley

113 S.W. 1050, 214 Mo. 309, 1908 Mo. LEXIS 225

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Foley. Read the opinion of the Court — 220 Mo. 86 →

Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided November 24, 1908·Published

Opinion

GANTT, J.

From a conviction in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for a felonious assault upon Edwin McClentick, the defendant appealed to this court.

Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed in due time and overruled, hut no hill of exceptions was filed in the case. The information is sufficient and the arraignment and the trial appear to [310]*310have been regular in all respects. There being no error in the record proper, the judgment must be and is affirmed.

Fox, P. J., and Burgess, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GANTT, J.

From a conviction in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for a felonious assault upon Edwin McClentick, the defendant appealed to this court.

Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed in due time and overruled, hut no hill of exceptions was filed in the case. The information is sufficient and the arraignment and the trial appear to [310]*310have been regular in all respects. There being no error in the record proper, the judgment must be and is affirmed.

Fox, P. J., and Burgess, J., concur.

State v. Foley, 113 S.W. 1050, 214 Mo. 309, 1908 Mo. LEXIS 225 (Mo. 1908).

Pincite

113 S.W. 1050 (State v. Foley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.