State v. Pints
| Decision Date | 31 October 1876 |
| Citation | 64 Mo. 317 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error, v. WILLIAM PINTS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Bollinger County Circuit Court.
J. C. Noell, for Appellant.
J. S. Smith, Att'y Gen'l, for Respondent, cited: Hoyt vs. Williams, 41 Mo. 270; Bateson vs. Clark, 37 Mo. 31; State vs. Matson, 38 Mo. 489.
The defendant was indicted in the circuit court within and for Bollinger County in December, 1875, for murder in the first degree, for killing one Catharine Burr on the 6th of November, 1875. Defendant at the same term of court was duly arraigned and on his plea of “not guilty” was put upon his trial, which resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment. The case is brought here for review upon writ of error. The evidence in this case is not preserved in a bill of exceptions. No exceptions to the admission or rejection of evidence nor to the giving or refusing instructions, nor to the action of the court in overruling motions, were preserved, and all that we can consider in reviewing the case is the record proper. (St. Louis vs. Milligan, 18 Mo. 181; Hoyt vs. Williams, 41 Mo. 270.)
In the case of Bateson vs. Clark, (37 Mo. 31) it was decided by this court that “the record proper is by law the petition, summons and all subsequent pleadings, including the verdict and judgment; and these the law has made it our duty to examine, and if any error is apparent on the face of these pleadings constituting the record, we will reverse the cause whether any exceptions were taken or not.
Under the above rule our examination of this case is necessarily restricted to the indictment and subsequent pleadings, including verdict and judgment.
The crime of murder in the first degree is well charged in the indictment, and every fact necessary, to constitute this the highest crime known to the law, is stated therein, and it is sufficient, in all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anderson
...made in the progress of the trial, although attention is called to them in the motion for a new trial. State v. Ray, 53 Mo. 345; State v. Pints, 64 Mo. 318; State v. Williams, 77 Mo. 310; State v. McDonald, 85 Mo. 539. When it clearly appears that other instructions than those preserved wer......
-
The State v. Douglas
...them into a bill of exceptions. [State v. DeMosse, 98 Mo. 344; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400; State v. Ray, 53 Mo. 345; State v. Pints, 64 Mo. 317; State v. Williams, 77 Mo. 310; State McDonald, 85 Mo. 543; State v. West, 157 Mo. 309, 57 S.W. 1071; State v. Huff, 161 Mo. 459, 61 S.W. 900.] ......
-
State v. Douglas
...bill of exceptions. State v. De Mosse, 98 Mo. loc. cit. 344, 11 S. W. 731; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400; State v. Ray, 53 Mo. 345; State v. Pints, 64 Mo. 317; State v. Williams, 77 Mo. 310; State v. McDonald, 85 Mo. 543; State v. West, 157 Mo. 309, 57 S. W. 1071; State v. Huff, 161 Mo. 459......
-
Knox County v. Brown
...v. Clark, 37 Mo. 37; State to use v. White, 61 Mo. 441; Peltz v. Eichele, 62 Mo. 171; State ex rel. v. Griffith, 73 Mo. 545; State v. Pints, 64 Mo. 317; Bagby Emberson, 79 Mo. 139; Nance v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 196. (4) The evidence of plaintiff to prove notice was too uncertain, indefinite and......