State v. Wray

• Decision Date: 05 November 1894
• Citation: State v. Wray, 27 S.W. 1100, 124 Mo. 542 (Mo. 1894)
• Parties: The State v. Wray, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

27 S.W. 1100

124 Mo. 542

The State v. Wray, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

November 5, 1894

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. -- Hon. Henry L. Edmunds, Judge.

Affirmed.

R. F. Walker, Attorney General, and C. O. Bishop for the state.

(1) The indictment is in proper form, and there is no error apparent upon the record proper. R. S. 1889, sec. 3535. (2) It has been declared by this court that "unless the motion for new trial be incorporated in the bill of exceptions we can not take notice of any alleged errors arising in the progress of the trial, and which can only be brought to our attention by bill of exceptions." State v. Robinson, 79 Mo. 66; State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. 672; State v. Gordon, 117 Mo. 387. This rule applies as well to criminal proceedings as to civil. State v. McCray, 74 Mo. 303; State v. Dunn, 73 Mo. 580. "And in such case, we are limited in our examination to such errors as might be corrected on a motion in arrest of judgment." State v. Sweeney, 68 Mo. 98.

OPINION

Sherwood, J.

Indicted for grand larceny, the defendant was convicted of that offense and appeals to this court.

The indictment is sufficient. The evidence has been preserved in the bill of exceptions, but inasmuch as the motion for a new trial has not been preserved in the bill, nor preserved in the record and called for in the bill, the clerk being directed to copy the same, we can not look into any exceptions taken nor into the evidence adduced. R. S. 1889, sec. 2304; State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. 672, 12 S.W. 358.

As there is no error in the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed. All concur.