State v. Granger

• Decision Date: 14 May 1907
• Citation: State v. Granger, 203 Mo. 586, 102 S.W. 498 (Mo. 1907)
• Parties: STATE v. GRANGER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

102 S.W. 498

203 Mo. 586

STATE v.GRANGER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 14, 1907.

1. CRIMINAL LAW—REVIEW—BILL OF EXCEPTIONS —EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING.

After the expiration of the time given by the court in which to file a bill of exceptions, neither the judge in vacation, nor the court at a subsequent term, had the power to extend the time for filing.

2. SAME — RECORD — EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

Where the appellant has filed no legal bill of exceptions, there is nothing before the court for review, except the record proper.

3. INFORMATION — SUFFICIENCY — ABBREVIATING NAME OF ACCUSED.

The sufficiency of an information was not affected by the abbreviating of the accused's name, "John," by use of the letters "Jno."

Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; Jas. L. Fort, Judge.

John Granger was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals.Affirmed.

Ed. Edmonds, Joe Farris, and T. H. Mauldin, for appellant.The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.

FOX, P. J.

This cause is brought to this court by appeal on the part of the defendant from a judgment of the circuit court of Stoddard county, convicting him of murder of the second degree.The record discloses that on October 2, 1905, the defendant was granted an appeal, and leave was given him to prepare and file his bill of exceptions in 90 days thereafter.It is further disclosed by the record that on January 2, 1906, defendant filed an order signed by the trial judge, extending the time for filing said bill of exceptions.It is therefore apparent that the 90 days which the appellant had in which to file bill of exceptions had expired before the filing of the order of the judge in vacation extending the time for the filing of such bill.Therefore, following the uniform rulings of this court that, after the expiration of the time given by the court in which to file a bill of exceptions, neither the judge in vacation, nor the court at a subsequent term of court, had the power to extend the time for the filing of such bill of exceptions, it must be held that there is nothing before this court in the case at bar for review, except the record proper.In State v. Gartrell, 171 Mo. 505, 71 S. W. 1045, it was said that: "Again and again it has been decided by this court that, when the period (beyond the trial term) granted by the court in which to file a bill of exceptions has expired, neither the court, nor the judge in vacation, can extend it, and what purports to be a bill of exceptions filed in pursuance of such a void order will not be considered by this court."State v. Apperson, 115 Mo. 470, 22 S. W. 375;State v. Moxley, 115 Mo. 645, 22 S. W. 575;Danforth v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 196, 27 S. W....