State v. Walters

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Walters

127 S.W. 918, 148 Mo. App. 52, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 595

DecidedApril 19, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 127 S.W. 918 (State v. Walters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Walters, 127 S.W. 918, 148 Mo. App. 52, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 595 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODE, J.

This is the second hearing of the appeal in the present case. The defendants were convicted of assault and battery and were fined fifty dollars each. At the first hearing our attention was not called to the fact that there was no bill of exceptions in the case. When the appeal was allowed, the court, in term time, granted sixty days from August 28, 1907, to file a bill of exceptions. Afterwards, and on October 28th, the time was extended, but at the date of the extension the period first fixed had expired and hence the extension was ineffective. [Powell v. Sherwood, 162 Mo. 605.] Besides that defect, which prevents an examination of the errors assigned, we observe no exception was saved to the overruling of the motion for new trial. This omission would leave nothing for review except the record proper, wherein no error occurs.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

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

GOODE, J.

This is the second hearing of the appeal in the present case. The defendants were convicted of assault and battery and were fined fifty dollars each. At the first hearing our attention was not called to the fact that there was no bill of exceptions in the case. When the appeal was allowed, the court, in term time, granted sixty days from August 28, 1907, to file a bill of exceptions. Afterwards, and on October 28th, the time was extended, but at the date of the extension the period first fixed had expired and hence the extension was ineffective. [Powell v. Sherwood, 162 Mo. 605.] Besides that defect, which prevents an examination of the errors assigned, we observe no exception was saved to the overruling of the motion for new trial. This omission would leave nothing for review except the record proper, wherein no error occurs.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.W. 918, 148 Mo. App. 52, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walters-moctapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack