State v. Harvey

105 Mo. 316
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 15, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 105 Mo. 316 (State v. Harvey) 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. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316 (Mo. 1891).

Opinion

Gantt, P. J.

At the September term, 1889, of the criminal court of Jackson county, Missouri, an indictment was returned against defendant, under section 1252, Revised Statutes, 1879, charging her with giving birth to a child on the thirty-first of August, 1889, and endeavoring to conceal the same by secretly depositing the child in a vault, so that it could not be known whether the child was born alive or dead.

The cause was tried on fourteenth day of October, 1889, and a verdict of guilty was'rendered by a jury and the punishment assessed at four years in the penitentiary. The cause is here on appeal. There is a copy of the motion for a new trial copied into the record proper and again in the a bill exceptions, but it has no place in either. The motion for new trial is no part of the record proper, and we cannot conceive how in the nature of things it has a place in a bill of exceptions, unless the overruling of it formed the basis of an exception, and such an exception was actually taken and saved when the motion was overruled.

If the errors pointed out in the brief of counsel for the defendant were really committed, it is most unfortunate they were not more careful, in making their bill of exceptions, to see that the motion for new trial was properly made a part of the record. State v. McCray, [318]*31874 Mo. 303; State v. Pints, 64 Mo. 317; State v. Dunn, 73 Mo. 586. As it is the said errors cannot be noticed in this court.

We have examined the record proper and find no error in it. The judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

State v. Wolzenski
106 S.W.2d 905 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1937)
State v. Harris
115 S.W. 968 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Wilbrandt v. Laclede Gas Light Co.
115 S.W. 497 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
State v. Parnell
105 S.W. 742 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
State v. Libby
102 S.W. 641 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
State v. Penland
97 S.W. 561 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
State v. Walker
91 S.W. 899 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Phillips v. Jones
75 S.W. 920 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
State v. Terry
72 S.W. 513 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
State v. Irwin
71 S.W. 1015 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
State v. Koplan
66 S.W. 967 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Flowers v. Raupp
87 Mo. App. 454 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Hecla Gold Mining Co. v. Gisborn
59 P. 518 (Utah Supreme Court, 1900)
Hoffman v. St. Louis Trust Co.
52 S.W. 345 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
State v. Gray
51 S.W. 85 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
Abbott v. Gillum
47 S.W. 1067 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Burdett
47 S.W. 796 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Ross v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad
42 S.W. 957 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
City of Columbia v. Dorsey
63 Mo. App. 626 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)
State v. Fitzgerald
32 S.W. 1113 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 Mo. 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harvey-mo-1891.