State v. Britt
| Decision Date | 09 November 1893 |
| Citation | 117 Mo. 584,23 S.W. 771 |
| Parties | STATE v. BRITT. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; E. M. Hughes, Judge.
Anderson Britt was convicted of defiling his ward, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Appling & Cole, for appellant. R. F. Walker, Atty. Gen., and Morton Jourdan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
At the October term, 1890, in the circuit court of Montgomery county, the defendant was indicted and convicted of defiling his ward, one Mary Dow, a female under the age of 18 years. His motions for a new trial and in arrest were overruled, and he filed his affidavit for appeal, and it was granted. On November 1, 1890, the court made the following order: Ordered, "that the said defendant be allowed an appeal, with leave to defendant to file a bill of exceptions within forty days from this date." The defendant did not avail himself of this extension, and file his bill of exceptions in the 40 days; nor did he obtain from the circuit judge, during the 40 days, an extension of the time; nor did the attorneys on both sides enter into a written stipulation extending the time, and file it with the clerk, in the cause. But on the 26th of April, 1892, some 15 months after the leave given by the court had expired, this entry appears in the record: "Now, at this day, comes defendant herein, by his attorney, and files his bill of exceptions herein, all exceptions as to time of filing the same being waived by the parties plaintiff and defendant." When the 40 days given by the court had expired, the judgment of the circuit became final. Neither the court nor the parties had any power, in the absence of an order or stipulation extending the time, to take any other steps in the cause. State v. Seaton, 106 Mo. 198, 17 S. W. Rep. 169; State v. Mosley, (Mo. Sup.) 22 S. W. Rep. 804; State v. Apperson, (Mo. Sup.) 22 S. W. Rep. 375. Hence, the bill of exceptions filed at the April term, 1892, constituted no part of the record of this cause, and we must look to the record proper, alone, for reversible errors. This we have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Priddy v. Gibson
... ... exception during the month of December, 1904. "Counsel ... cannot confer jurisdiction." Bank v. Barker, ... 145 Mo. 367; State ex rel. v. Gates, 143 Mo. 63; ... State v. Schuchmann, 133 Mo. 111; State v ... Simmons, 124 Mo. 443; State v. Britt, 117 Mo ... 584; State v. Moseley, 116 Mo. 545; State v ... Apperson, 115 Mo. 470; State v. Scott, 113 Mo ... 559. (2) The fact that the time given by the court to file ... bills of exceptions had expired before this action was begun ... is not sufficient to prevent the issuance of ... ...
-
Musick v. The Kansas City, Springfield & Memphis Railroad Company
...on him, and he could not shift it to the opposing counsel, so as to relieve himself of the consequences of his own neglect. State v. Britt, 117 Mo. 584, 23 S.W. 771. The of exceptions was not, therefore, filed in time, and alleged errors arising thereon can not be considered. II. The action......
-
The State v. Schuchmann
...of time had expired. The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed. State v. Simmons, 124 Mo. 443; State v. Clark, 119 Mo. 426; State v. Britt, 117 Mo. 584; State Mosley, 116 Mo. 546; State v. Scott, 109 Mo. 226; State v. Hill, 98 Mo. 570; State v. Broderick, 70 Mo. 622; Boardman v. Vaughn, 4......
-
Union National Bank of Chicago v. Barker
...proper, and the bill of exceptions not having been filed within the time, judgment must be affirmed. State v. Clark, 119 Mo. 426; State v. Britt, 117 Mo. 584; State Mosley, 116 Mo. 545; State v. Apperson, 115 Mo. 470; State v. Seaton, 106 Mo. 198. (2) The description of the indebtedness und......