State v. Fraker
| Decision Date | 02 February 1897 |
| Citation | 137 Mo. 258,38 S.W. 909 |
| Parties | STATE v. FRAKER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Ray county; E. J. Broaddus, Judge.
George W. Fraker was indicted for attempting to obtain money by false pretenses. From a judgment quashing the indictment, the state appeals. Affirmed.
R. F. Walker, Atty. Gen., and J. L. Farris, Jr., for the State. Jas. L. Farris, Sr., A. S. Lyman, John Dougherty, and Lavelock, Kirkpatrick & Divelbiss, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the state of Missouri from a judgment of the circuit court of Ray county quashing an indictment against the respondent. The indictment was discussed with much ability by both sides. The case has some very unusual features, and has excited much interest, particularly in its legal aspects. The motion to quash the indictment was sustained. The prosecuting attorney filed no bill of exceptions, and the motion to quash the indictment was not, therefore, made a part of the record. That we may not be misunderstood, we state that the clerk has copied the different motions to quash into the transcript certified to this court, and the record proper recites, in the order overruling the motion, that the prosecuting attorney at the time excepted to the ruling of the court; but this action of the clerk in voluntarily copying these motions into the transcript does not make them a part of the record, in a legal sense, nor does the noting of the exception on the record proper preserve it for review by this court. The motion to quash must be preserved in a bill of exceptions, or its sufficiency cannot be considered by this court. State v. Fortune, 10 Mo. 467; State v. Wall, 15 Mo. 208; State v. Gee, 79 Mo. 313; State v. Thruston, 83 Mo. 271; State v. Vincent, 91 Mo. 662, 4 S. W. 430; State v. Henderson, 109 Mo. 292, 19 S. W. 239. It follows that the judgment of the circuit court must be, and it is, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Settle
...present the matter for review, State v. Sollars, 200 S.W. 1052; State v. Miller, 307 Mo. 372; State v. McKay, 225 Mo. 540; State v. Fraker, 137 Mo. 258, such a holding no doubt attributed to the fact that a motion to quash is not limited to matters on the face of the information or indictme......
-
Shohoney v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City R. Co.
... ... 466; Quinn v ... Railroad, 175 Mass. 150; Peterson v. Traction ... Co., 23 Wash. 637; Railroad v. Voigt, 176 U.S ... 498; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307; State v ... Julow, 129 Mo. 163; State v. Tie Co., 181 Mo ... 536; State ex rel. v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 378; ... Dry, 134 Mo.App. 589, 114 ... S.W. 1145); that a motion to quash an indictment stands on ... the same foot ( State v. Fraker, 137 Mo. 258, 38 S.W ... 909); [231 Mo. 153] so to review a judgment ( Daggs v ... Smith, 193 Mo. 494, 91 S.W. 1043) and motions to set ... ...
-
State v. Settle
...present the matter for review, State v. Sollars, 200 S.W. 1052; State v. Miller, 307 Mo. 372; State v. McKay, 225 Mo. 540; State v. Fraker, 137 Mo. 258, such a holding is no doubt attributed to the fact that a motion to quash is not limited to matters on the face of the information or indic......
-
State v. Brennan
... ... This ... has been the uniform ruling of this court since United ... States v. Gamble, 10 Mo. 457. [ Christy v ... Myers, 21 Mo. 112; State v. Wall, 15 Mo. 208; ... State ex rel. v. Sanford, 127 Mo. 368, 30 S.W. 112; ... State v. Burks, 132 Mo. 363, 34 S.W. 48; State ... v. Fraker, 137 Mo. 258, 38 S.W. 909.] ... It ... follows that this copy of the challenge did not become a part ... of the record proper by the unauthorized act of the clerk ... But if ... we could look at it, it states no more than the recital made ... in the bill ... ...