State v. Wray

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Wray

27 S.W. 1100, 124 Mo. 542, 1894 Mo. LEXIS 317

Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided November 5, 1894·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Sherwood, J.

Indicted for grand larceny, the defendant was convicted of that ofíense and appeals to this court.

The indictment is sufficient. The evidence has been preserved in the bill of exceptions, but inasmuch as the motion for a new trial has not been preserved in the bill, nor preserved in the record and called for in the bill, the clerk being directed to copy the same, we can not look into any exceptions taken nor into the evidence adduced. R. S. 1889, sec. 2304; State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. 672.

As there is no error in the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

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

Sherwood, J.

Indicted for grand larceny, the defendant was convicted of that ofíense and appeals to this court.

The indictment is sufficient. The evidence has been preserved in the bill of exceptions, but inasmuch as the motion for a new trial has not been preserved in the bill, nor preserved in the record and called for in the bill, the clerk being directed to copy the same, we can not look into any exceptions taken nor into the evidence adduced. R. S. 1889, sec. 2304; State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. 672.

As there is no error in the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

State v. Wray, 27 S.W. 1100, 124 Mo. 542, 1894 Mo. LEXIS 317 (Mo. 1894).

Pincite

27 S.W. 1100 (State v. Wray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related