State v. Fraker

38 S.W. 909, 137 Mo. 258, 1897 Mo. LEXIS 28
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedFebruary 2, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 38 S.W. 909 (State v. Fraker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Fraker, 38 S.W. 909, 137 Mo. 258, 1897 Mo. LEXIS 28 (Mo. 1897).

Opinion

Gantt, P. J.

This is an appeal by the state of Missouri from a judgment of the circuit court of Ray [259]*259county quashing an indictment against the respondent. The indictment was discussed with much ability by both sides. The case has some very unusual features and has excited much interest, particularly in its legal aspects. The motion to quash the indictment was sustaiued. The prosecuting attorney filed no bill of exceptions and the motion to quash the indictment was not therefore made a part of the record. That we may not be misunderstood we state that the clerk has copied the different motions to quash into the transcript certified to this court and the record proper recites in the order overruling the motion that the prosecuting attorney at the time excepted to the ruling of the court but this action of the clerk in voluntarily copying these motions into the transcript does not make them a part of the record in a legal sense nor does the noting of the exception on the record proper preserve it for review by this court. The motion to quash must be preserved in a bill of exceptions or its sufficiency can not be considered by this court. State v. Fortune, 10 Mo. 466; State v. Wall, 15 Mo. 208; State v. Gee, 79 Mo. 313; State v. Thruston, 83 Mo. 271; State v. Vincent, 91 Mo. 662; State v. Henderson, 109 Mo. 292.

It follows that the judgment of the circuit court must be and it is affirmed.

Sherwood and Burgess, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Wilbur
462 S.W.2d 653 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1971)
State v. Settle
46 S.W.2d 882 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1932)
State v. Miller
270 S.W. 291 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
State ex rel. Mosberg v. Owens
207 S.W. 241 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1918)
Shohoney v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad
132 S.W. 1059 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
State v. McKay
125 S.W. 478 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
State v. Finley
91 S.W. 942 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
State v. Tooker
87 S.W. 487 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)
Krueger v. Brenham Furniture Manufacturing Co.
85 S.W. 1156 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1905)
State v. Brennan
65 S.W. 325 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)
State v. Wilhoit
44 S.W. 718 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Campbell
43 S.W. 167 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 S.W. 909, 137 Mo. 258, 1897 Mo. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fraker-mo-1897.