State v. Scobee

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Scobee

164 S.W. 198, 255 Mo. 270, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 21

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedFebruary 17, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 S.W. 198 (State v. Scobee) 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. Scobee, 164 S.W. 198, 255 Mo. 270, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 21 (Mo. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

FARIS, J.

Defendant, convicted in the circuit court of Stone county of felonious assault, has ap pealed. Against his averments of error arising out o". matters of pure exception occurring upon the trial, thi State, to foreclose examination of the bill of excep tions, urges that there is no order in the record show ing either that the motion for a new trial was eve'i filed, or that it was ever overruled.

[272]*272Motion for New Recltái of F°iifng and overruling. [271]*271Looking to the record we note chat under the style of the case the circuit clerk has set out a com[272]*272píete copy of the motion for a new trial, bnt the record fails to show any order of the * ourt regarding- it. It is true, that in the margin, opposite the style of the case and preceding suck copy of the motion, the clerk fias ge£ 011t catch words, thus: “Motion for new trial filed and overruled,” evidently for his own convenience in indexing and for reference; but there is not one- word to indicate to us what the court did. A reference to other parts of this transcript shows conclusively that these are mere catchwords, even if we did not judicially notice the custom of circuit clerks in making up their records, as also the statutes requiring orders of the circuit court to be indexed. [Sec. 2685 and 3859, R. S. 1909.] Opposite the style of this case and preceding- the sentence appear the words, “Sentence and judgment,” as is likewise the case as to all other orders in this transcript. Catchwords, or marginal notes of the clerk, manifestly made for his own convenience, can not eke out court orders. [State v. Johnson, 81 Mo. 60; Barbee v. Hereford, 48 Mo. 323.] It follows that, since that which has been called the record proper to distinguish it from that part of the record made so by the timely and proper filing' of a bill of exceptions, fails to show either that the motion for a new trial was filed or that it was overruled, there is nothing before us except the record proper. [State v. George, 221 Mo. 519; Hill v. Butler County, 195 Mo. 511.]

We have carefully examined the record proper and find no error therein of moment sufficient to justify reversal and therefore consider -that the judgment should be affirmed. Let this be done.

Walker, J. J., and Brown,. J., concur.

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

FARIS, J.

Defendant, convicted in the circuit court of Stone county of felonious assault, has ap pealed. Against his averments of error arising out o". matters of pure exception occurring upon the trial, thi State, to foreclose examination of the bill of excep tions, urges that there is no order in the record show ing either that the motion for a new trial was eve'i filed, or that it was ever overruled.

[272]*272Motion for New Recltái of F°iifng and overruling. [271]*271Looking to the record we note chat under the style of the case the circuit clerk has set out a com[272]*272píete copy of the motion for a new trial, bnt the record fails to show any order of the * ourt regarding- it. It is true, that in the margin, opposite the style of the case and preceding suck copy of the motion, the clerk fias ge£ 011t catch words, thus: “Motion for new trial filed and overruled,” evidently for his own convenience in indexing and for reference; but there is not one- word to indicate to us what the court did. A reference to other parts of this transcript shows conclusively that these are mere catchwords, even if we did not judicially notice the custom of circuit clerks in making up their records, as also the statutes requiring orders of the circuit court to be indexed. [Sec. 2685 and 3859, R. S. 1909.] Opposite the style of this case and preceding- the sentence appear the words, “Sentence and judgment,” as is likewise the case as to all other orders in this transcript. Catchwords, or marginal notes of the clerk, manifestly made for his own convenience, can not eke out court orders. [State v. Johnson, 81 Mo. 60; Barbee v. Hereford, 48 Mo. 323.] It follows that, since that which has been called the record proper to distinguish it from that part of the record made so by the timely and proper filing' of a bill of exceptions, fails to show either that the motion for a new trial was filed or that it was overruled, there is nothing before us except the record proper. [State v. George, 221 Mo. 519; Hill v. Butler County, 195 Mo. 511.]

We have carefully examined the record proper and find no error therein of moment sufficient to justify reversal and therefore consider -that the judgment should be affirmed. Let this be done.

Walker, J. J., and Brown,. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.W. 198, 255 Mo. 270, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-scobee-mo-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack