Case ID: mo_146/html/0005-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Burgess, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State v. Copeland, Appellant.
    
    Division Two,
    November 7, 1898.
    Appellate Practice: bill of exceptions: when not reviewed. Where the bill of exceptions contains the testimony, but not the instructions, nor the motion for a new trial, nor the motion in arrest of Judgment, nor any entry showing an exception taken and saved to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court will review only the record proper.
    
      Appeal from Buchanan County Criminal Court. — Hon. R. E. Culver, Judge.
    Aeeirmed.
    
      John Doniphan for appellant.
    
      Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   Burgess, J.

At the March term, 1898, of the criminal court of Buchanan county, the defendant was jointly indicted with two others, and charged with feloniously stealing at said county seven live turkeys, the property of one Harriett McCauley, of the value of $35. At the same term on application of Ida Copeland she was granted a severance, put upon her trial, found guilty of grand larceny, and her punishment fixed at two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. She appeals.

■ The bill of exceptions presented by the record in this case contains nothing save and except the' testi-' mony adduced at the trial. It does not contain the instructions, the motion for a new trial or the motion in arrest of judgment, all of which are matters of exception. Nor does it show that an exception was taken and saved to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. So there is nothing before this court for review save and except the record proper, and in this we find no reversible error. We must therefore affirm the judgment.

Uantt, P. J., and Sherwood, J., concur.