Case Name: THE STATE v. G. M. ROBERTS, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1909-05-18
Citations: 219 Mo. 720
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE v. G. M. ROBERTS, Appellant.
Judges: Burgess and Fox, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 219
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
THE STATE v. G. M. ROBERTS, Appellant.
Division Two,
May 18, 1909.
NO BILL OF EXCEPTIONS: No Motion for New Trial. Where no motion for a new trial and no bill of exceptions were filed in the trial court, and the record proper is found upon inspection to conform to the requirements of the law in all respects, the judgment adjudging defendant guilty of an assault with malice aforethought with intent to kill and assessing his punishment at a fine of $250, will be affirmed.
Appeal from Texas Circuit Court. — Hon. L. B. Wood-side, Judge.
ARFIRMUD.
Elliott W. Major, Attorney- General, and Chas. G. Rev elle, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
Where no bill of exceptions is filed and the record proper is free from error, the judgment will be affirmed. State v. Miller, 209 Mo. 389; State v. Brown, 206 Mo. 718. The information charges with certainty and particularly all essential facts and elements, and fully informs defendant of the exact nature and cause of the accusation against him. State v. Layeock, 141 Mo. 279; State v. Harrin, 209 Mo. 435.

Opinion:
GANTT, P. J. —
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circnt court of Texas county, imposing a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars opon the defendant for an assault with intent to do great bodily harm upon one Otto Berry.
The information charged an assault with malice aforethought with intent to kill and murder. The defendant was duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He was tried and convicted by the jury at the May term, 1907. No motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment was filed and no bill of exceptions.
The information is in all respects sufficient and all the steps, leading up to, and including the trial, return of verdict and sentence of the court are in due and regular form.
The judgment is affirmed.
Burgess and Fox, JJ., concur.