State v. Harris
| Citation | 26 S.W. 558,121 Mo. 445 |
| Parties | The State v. Harris, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1894 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. J. Gideon, Judge.
Affirmed.
Weir & Hilton for appellant.
R. F Walker, Attorney General, and Morton Jourdan, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.
(1) The record proper clearly shows that the bill of exceptions was not filed within the time allowed by court. This being true the judgment must be either affirmed or reversed upon the record. State v. Britt, 23 S.W. 771; State v Seaton, 106 Mo. 198; State v. Mosley, 22 S.W. 804; State v. Apperson, 22 S.W. 375; State v. Ryan, 22 S.W. 486; State v. Harben, 105 Mo. 603; State v. Berry, 103 Mo. 367; State v. Hill, 98 Mo. 570; State v. Pints, 64 Mo. 317. (2) The further objection is urged to the consideration of the purported bill of exceptions, that there is no record entry showing that the bill was filed at any time. This is essential to its preservation. Dinwiddie v. Jacobs, 82 Mo. 195; Pope v. Thompson, 66 Mo. 661; Lumber Co. v. Howard, 76 Mo. 517; McGrew v. Foster, 66 Mo. 30; Roesler v. Bank, 88 Mo. 565. Neither the indorsement of the filing on the back of the bill by the clerk, nor the certificate of the judge that it is signed, sealed and made a part of the record, will suffice. (3) The record presents no error. The indictment is in the language of the statute defining the offense. R. S. 1889, sec. 3480.
The defendant was indicted and convicted in the criminal court of Greene county, for rape on Mattie Williams. There are two counts in the indictment. In one count, the female is alleged to have been under the age of fourteen years; in the other count, the rape is charged to have been committed by force and against her will. The defendant is not represented in this court by counsel or brief.
The verdict was rendered July 29, 1893, and the motion for new trial was filed August 3, 1893. On the ninth of August leave was given defendant to file his bill of exceptions. "Sixty days from this date, in vacation, with the clerk of the court." The record shows that the bill of exceptions was filed October 9, 1893.
The attorney general insists that the bill of exceptions can not be entertained by this court, because it was not filed within the time allowed by the order and leave of the court. Excluding the ninth day of August, the day on which the leave was given, it is clear that the sixty days expired October 8, and the point made is well taken. State v. Seaton, 106 Mo. 198, 17 S.W. 169; State v. Harben, 105 Mo. 603, 16 S.W. 938. In computing this time, we are necessarily governed by the entries in the record proper and not the recitals in the bill of exceptions.
A careful examination of the record proper discloses no error on the contrary, the court seems to have proceeded very carefully, and the record is very complete. The motion for new trial was filed in time. While our statute is mandatory in requiring the motion to be filed in four days, as was held in State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542-591, yet it has been ruled to mean four judicial days. And as we take notice of the calendar, we find July 29, 1893, was Saturday. The intervening...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. Sherwood
...... (c) The act is illegal, unconstitutional and void, because. one class of persons in the State, to-wit, railroad. companies, have by the terms of the act a greater burden and. charge placed upon them at the same time and under the same. ...Apperson, 115 Mo. 470; State v. Seaton, 106 Mo. 198; Burdoin v. Town, 116 Mo. 358; State v. Mosley, 116 Mo. 545; State v. Harris,. 121 Mo. 445. . . VALLIANT,. J. Burgess, C. J., Robinson, Brace and Gantt, JJ., concur;. Marshall, J., concurs in all ......
-
State ex rel. Allison v. Buford
...is non dies, and should not be counted." Catell v. Dispatch Pub. Co., 88 Mo. 360; Queen City Inv. Co. v. Kreider, 31 S.W.2d 1004; State v. Harris, 121 Mo. 447; Ewart Pennington, 233 Mo. 704; Long v. Hawkins, 178 Mo. 103; National Bank v. Williams, 46 Mo. 17; Maloney v. Ry. Co., 122 Mo. 115.......
-
State ex rel. Kansas City, Independence & Fairmount Stage Lines Co. v. Public Service Com'n
...Mo. 452; Scharff v. McGaugh, 205 Mo. 354; Graham v. DeGuire, 154 Mo. 88; Gray v. Worst, 129 Mo. 131; Huhn v. Lang, 122 Mo. 605; State v. Harris, 121 Mo. 445; Hahn Dierkes, 37 Mo. 574; Littleton v. Christy's Admr., 11 Mo. 390; McCray Lumber Co. v. Standard Const. Co., 285 S.W. 108; Natl. Ban......
-
Maloney v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...a jury, and four working days are meant. Bank v. Williams, 46 Mo. 17; Cattell v. Dispatch Publishing Company, 88 Mo. 356; State v. Harris, 121 Mo. 445, 26 S.W. 558. For reasons stated there is nothing before us to be passed upon, save and except the record proper, and, as there does not see......