Case ID: mo-app_69/html/0441-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bond, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State of Missouri, Appellant, v. James Russell, Respondent.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    February 23, 1897.
    Criminal Law: indictment, motion to quash not reviewable, when. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, a motion to quash an indictment is not preserved for review. State v. Mora, 109 Mo. 292.
    
      Appeal from the Crawford Circuit Court. — Hon. C. C. Bland, Judge.
    Aeeibmed.
    
      A. H. Harrison, prosecuting attorney, and C. D. Jamison, for appellant.
    The words of the statute must be construed so as to give them effect if possible. Neemcm v. Smith, 50 Mo. 525; State v. Dieeling, 66 Id. 375;'Cooley’s Const. Lim. [4 Ed.] 223; Bish. Stat. Crimes [2 Ed.], 80, 82.
    Cards are a gambling device under sections 3809, 3810, Eevised Statutes, 1889, though not so under section 3808.' State v. Purdom, 3 Mo. 115; State v. Ellis, 4 Id. 474; State v. Eubanks, 5 Id. 450; State v. Bates, 10 Id. 166; State v. Herryford, 19 Id. 377; State v. Skaggs, 33 Id. 92.
    No brief filed for respondent.
   Bond, J.

The defendant was indicted for gambling. He filed a motion to quash, which was sustained. The state appealed. No bill of exceptions was taken.

A motion to quash an indictment is not part of the record proper, hence it is not preserved' for review, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. State v. Flora, 109 Mo. 292.

The judgment herein is affirmed.

Judge Biggs concurs. Judge Bland not sitting.