TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Gardner

State v. LEO GARDNER

State v. Gardner, 157 S.W. 84 (Mo. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 20, 1913
Judges
Roy, Williams
Citations
157 S.W. 84250 Mo. 4261913 Mo. LEXIS 162
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. NO BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. Where no bill of exceptions is filed, there is nothing before the court except the record proper, and if that is free from error the judgment will be affirmed. 2. INDICTMENT: Manslaughter in Fourth Degree: Careless Driving of Automobile. An indictment charging manslaughter in the fourth degree, death having resulted from the careless driving of an automobile, is held good upon the authority of State v. Watson, 216 Mo. 424.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.- — Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, 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 — Williams

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

WILLIAMS, C.

Indictment: Careless Driving: Automobile. Defendant was tried and found guilty in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, under an indictment charging manslaughter in the fourth degree in that defendant caused the instant death of one Jesse B. Williams by feloniously, carelessly, recklessly, and with culpable negligence, driving an automobile against and upon him. The punishment assessed was a fine of five hundred dollars, and defendant appealed.

Defendant failed to file any bill of exceptions, and we are therefore limited in our review to the record proper. The indictment charges the offense in the same language employed in the information set forth in the opinion in the case of State v. Watson, reported *427 in the 216 Mo., at page 420, l. c. 424. In the Watson case the sufficiency of the information is fully discussed, and held to he in proper and sufficient form.

Other portions of the record proper are complete, showing all formal and proper requirements, and the same are free from error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Roy, C., concurs.

PER CURIAM. — The foregoing opinion of Williams, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

All the judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1924: 11927: 11939: 119242026peak 1924 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Ruffin126 S.W.2d 218 (Mo. 1939)
  2. State v. Beckham267 S.W. 817 (Mo. 1924)
  3. State v. Kaiser300 S.W. 716 (Mo. 1927)

Most recent

  1. State v. Ruffin126 S.W.2d 218 (Mo. 1939)
  2. State v. Kaiser300 S.W. 716 (Mo. 1927)
  3. State v. Beckham267 S.W. 817 (Mo. 1924)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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