State v. Russell

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Russell

69 Mo. App. 441, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 73

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 23, 1897·Published

Opinion

Bond, J.

The defendant was indicted for gambling. He filed a motion to quash, which was sustained. The state appealed. No bill of exceptions was taken.

[442]*442A motion to quash an indictment is not part of the record proper, hence it is not preserved' for review, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. State v. Flora, 109 Mo. 292.

The judgment herein is affirmed.

Judge Biggs concurs. Judge Bland not sitting.

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

Bond, J.

The defendant was indicted for gambling. He filed a motion to quash, which was sustained. The state appealed. No bill of exceptions was taken.

[442]*442A motion to quash an indictment is not part of the record proper, hence it is not preserved' for review, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. State v. Flora, 109 Mo. 292.

The judgment herein is affirmed.

Judge Biggs concurs. Judge Bland not sitting.

State v. Russell, 69 Mo. App. 441, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 73 (Mo. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

69 Mo. App. 441 (State v. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related