State v. Dempsey
| Decision Date | 17 February 1913 |
| Citation | 153 S.W. 1064 |
| Parties | STATE v. DEMPSEY. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chariton County; John P. Butler, Judge.
J. E. Dempsey was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.
L. N. Dempsey, of Kansas City, John D. Taylor, of Keytesville, and J. A. Collet, of Salisbury, for appellant. Roy W. Rucker, of Keytesville, for the State.
A short form transcript was filed in this court February 19, 1910, from which it appears that defendant was allowed an appeal from a judgment rendered against him in the circuit court on a verdict of a jury finding defendant "guilty as charged in the information, and assessing" his punishment at a fine of $300. No stay or supersedeas was ordered on the granting of the appeal, and the transcript does not inform us of the nature of the case; but we shall assume it was a prosecution for some misdemeanor alleged to have been committed by defendant. The appeal was returnable to the October term, 1910, but no full transcript of the record was filed 15 days before that term.
Pursuant to a written stipulation filed by the parties, the cause was continued to the March term, 1911, and then to the October term of that year. No transcript of the record, abstract, statement, or brief has been filed, and there is nothing before us for consideration and determination.
If a full transcript of the record had been lodged in this court in the time prescribed by statute, it would be our duty to render judgment on the record regardless of the absence of an abstract, statements, and briefs. Section 5312, R. S. 1909; Hamuel v. State, 5 Mo. 260; State v. Davidson, 73 Mo. 428; State v. Rhodes, 35 Mo. App. 360; State v. Ross, 119 Mo. App. 401, 94 S. W. 842.
But, in the absence of such transcript, we are constrained to ascertain upon whom the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robertson
...that that duty rests upon the appellant, and that he cannot shift it upon the clerk. Caldwell v. Hawkins, 46 Mo. 263; State v. Dempsey, 16S Mo. App. 300, 153 S. W. 1064; Sections 2047, 2048, and 2049, R. S. 1909; Rule 28, Supreme Court (169 S. W. xi) October, 1901; Crawford v. Railway Co., ......
-
City of St. Louis v. Pope, 25100.
...v. Ross, 334 Mo. 870, 69 S.W.2d 293; State v. Randolph, Mo.App., 296 S.W. 440; State v. Daily, Mo.App., 27 S.W.2d 753; State v. Dempsey, 168 Mo.App. 298, 153 S.W. 1064. It has been specifically held that the appellate court is "under no obligation of its own motion to question the verity of......
-
Clader v. City of Neosho
...[Mo. App.], 180 S.W. 435; State ex rel. v. Robertson, 264 Mo. 661, 671, 175 S.W. 610; State v. Chilton , 200 S.W. 745; State v. Dempsey, 168 Mo.App. 298, 153 S.W. 1064; State v. Faith, 180 Mo.App. 484, 494, 166 S.W. 649; State v. Bailey, 192 Mo.App. 391, 395, 181 S.W. 605." See also Farmers......
-
State v. Faith
...to sections 5308 and 5309, R. S. 1909, in Caldwell v. Hawkins, 46 Mo. 263; State v. Caldwell, 21 Mo. App. 645; and State v. Dempsey, 168 Mo. App. 298, 300, 153 S. W. 1064. What is said in the lastcited case about filing abstracts of the record is said arguendo and in no wise means that an a......