State v. Hill

• Decision Date: 04 November 1889
• Parties: STATE v. HILL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

12 S.W. 340

98 Mo. 570

STATE v. HILL.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 4, 1889.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS — TIME OF FILING.

In Missouri, where the court has adjourned, after making an order allowing a certain time in which to file a bill of exceptions, it cannot extend the time by a similar order, at a subsequent term.

Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county; CHARLES H. S. GOODMAN, Judge.

Defendant was indicted and duly tried for embezzlement. The trial resulted in a conviction, and sentence to imprisonment for two years. Motions for new trial and in arrest were overruled at the April term, 1887 of the Daviess circuit court. At the same term defendant took an appeal to the supreme court, and an order was entered extending the time to file bill of exceptions to the first day of the next (June) term. On the ninth day of the June term the court extended the time to July 15th. The bill was filed July 12th.

W. T. Sullivan and John Leopard, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

BARCLAY, J.

After the rulings were made on defendant's final motions, and his appeal was allowed, the court, at the same term, extended his time to file bill of exceptions to the first day of the next term. When that time expired, the court, then holding another term, made an order for a further extension, within which the bill was filed. It is now insisted, by the vigilant representative of the state, that we cannot properly consider the bill thus filed. The point seems well taken. The record in the cause having been closed at a previous term, the authority of the court thereafter to allow a bill of exceptions depended on the order to that effect made at that term, in accordance with the statute on that subject. The court could not properly, in the first instance, make an order at a subsequent term, after the cause had terminated, allowing a bill of exceptions to proceedings at the prior term. Any allowance of the bill at such a time would derive vitality only from the action of the court taken during the term when the cause was pending, by virtue of which the bill could be connected with, and by relation made part, of the record. We are of opinion that after the extended time has expired the court cannot properly make a further order of extension. It is hence necessary to exclude the bill of exceptions from consideration on this appeal. No suggestion of any error in the record proper has been made. We have carefully reviewed it, and fail to discover any. The...