TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Dunham

State v. Dunham, 76 S.W. 1008 (Mo. 1903)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 17, 1903
Judges
Burgess, Fox, Gantt
Citations
76 S.W. 1008178 Mo. 11903 Mo. LEXIS 331
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Appeals: no bill of exceptions. Where no exception is saved to the. overruling of a motion for a new trial, there is nothing for review except the record proper, and that being free from error, the judgment will be affirmed.
Summary
Appeal from Caldwell Circuit Court.— Hon. J. TV. Alexander, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gantt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

GANTT, P. J.

The defendant was indicted in Caldwell county for an assault with intent to kill Ed Nichols. He was tried and convicted, and from the sentence imposed has appealed to this court. The defendant is not represented in this court, and has filed no *2 brief, but under the statute we have been required to go through the whole record to ascertain if prejudicial error was committed against him. We find that no exception was taken or saved to the overruling of his motion for a new trial, and we' are therefore restricted to the record proper. [State v. Weinegard, 168 Mo. 490 .] The indictment is in due form; the arraignment, regular; and the summoning and impaneling of the jury, and the return of the verdict and sentence thereon are in all respects in proper form. The judgment is affirmed.

Burgess and Fox, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1904: 11906: 11907: 21908: 11909: 11914: 11922: 11924: 219042026peak 1907 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brockschmidt v. St. Louis & Meramec River Railroad103 S.W. 964 (Mo. 1907)
  2. State Ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. Hedrick241 S.W. 402 (Mo. 1922) · Concurrence
  3. Kinlen v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.115 S.W. 523 (Mo. 1909)
  4. Edmondson v. Hotels Statler Co.267 S.W. 612 (Mo. 1924)
  5. Lynch v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.106 S.W. 68 (Mo. 1907)
  6. Rauch v. Himmelberger264 S.W. 658 (Mo. 1924)

Most recent

  1. Edmondson v. Hotels Statler Co.267 S.W. 612 (Mo. 1924)
  2. Rauch v. Himmelberger264 S.W. 658 (Mo. 1924)
  3. State Ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. Hedrick241 S.W. 402 (Mo. 1922) · Concurrence
  4. Witham v. Delano171 S.W. 990 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914)
  5. Kinlen v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.115 S.W. 523 (Mo. 1909)
  6. State v. Haney108 S.W. 1080 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Weinegard, 68 S.W. 357 (Mo. 1902) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list