State v. Jones

Decision Date22 December 1890
Citation14 S.W. 946,102 Mo. 305
PartiesSTATE v. JONES.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Dallas county; W. P. PORTER, Special Judge.

J. S. Haynes and Thos. M. Brown, for appellant. Atty. Gen. Wood, for the State.

SHERWOOD, J.

The defendant, indicted for seducing and debauching Alfonza Snipes, was tried before a special judge, convicted, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of three years. From the judgment and sentence in this case, he appeals to this court. At the threshold of the merits of this cause, objection is made that the bill of exceptions is not signed by the trial judge, who refused to sign the same, giving his reasons therefor, in compliance with the statute, that the bill was untrue in certain particulars, etc. Bills of exceptions are procured in the same way whether the cause be civil or criminal. Rev. St. 1889, §§ 4221, 2168, 2169 et seq.

Where the judge refuses to sign the bill, then it may be signed by three by-standers, respectable inhabitants of the state. Section 2170. When the judge refuses to permit any bill signed by others than himself, as in the above section is provided, then either party to the suit may take affidavits in relation to the truth of the bill, "not exceeding five in number." The affidavits taken on behalf of the defendant are seven in number; that is, three persons make one affidavit, and four others make single affidavits, making five affidavits in all, but made by seven affiants. The statute does not intend that more than one person shall make an affidavit, at least that several persons shall not so join in making...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Alamo Iron Works v. Prado
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 1920
    ...said: "Under no possible circumstances could the attorneys for either party be classed as `bystanders.' In the case of State v. Jones, 102 Mo. 305, 14 S. W. 946, 15 S. W. 556, the matter in question was directly before the Supreme Court of Missouri, and it was held that an attorney in the c......
  • Utley v. Hill
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1900
    ...employed must be taken in its common acceptation; that is, in the plain or ordinary meaning and usual sense of the word. [State v. Jones, 102 Mo. 305, 14 S.W. 946; Warren v. Paving Co., 115 Mo. 572, 22 S.W. State v. Marion Co. Ct., 128 Mo. 427, 31 S.W. 23, 30 S.W. 103.] It ought to be so co......
  • Joplin Supply Co. v. West
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1910
    ...or usual sense, and regard is to be had to their general and proper use. Rev. St. 1899, § 4160 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2252); State v. Jones, 102 Mo. 305, 14 S. W. 946, 15 S. W. 556; State ex rel. v. Marion County Court, 128 Mo. 427, 30 S. W. 103, 31 S. W. 23. If we limit the right to a mechanic......
  • Joplin Supply Company v. West
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1910
    ... ... 231; Hazel v ... Clark, 89 Mo.App. 78. (3) A chattel annexed to a chattel ... is not subject to a lien under the statutes of this ... State. Ottumwa v. Muir, 126 Mo.App. 590; ... Springfield Foundry & Machine Co. v. Cole, 130 Mo ... 1; Ranson v. Shehan, 78 Mo. 668; Williams v ... usual sense, and regard is to be had to their general and ... proper use. [Revised Statutes 1899, section 4160; State ... v. Jones, 102 Mo. 305, 14 S.W. 946; State ex rel. v ... Marion County Court, 128 Mo. 427, 31 S.W. 23, 30 S.W ...          If we ... limit the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT