Case Name: THE STATE v. JAMES BROWN, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1905-05-16
Citations: 188 Mo. 400
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE v. JAMES BROWN, Appellant.
Judges: Gantt, J., concurs; Burgess, P. J., absent.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 188
Pages: 400–401

Head Matter:
THE STATE v. JAMES BROWN, Appellant.
Division Two,
May 16, 1905.
NO BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. Where there is no hill of exceptions and an examination of the record proper discloses no> irregularity in the prosecution of a criminal case, the judgment will he affirmed..
Appeal from Ripley Circuit Court. — Ho». J. L. Fort, Judge.
Affirmed.
J. C. Sheppard and J. V. Conran for appellant.
Herbert S. Hadley, Attorney-General, and Rush C. Lake, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
There being only the record proper before the court, and the proceeding appearing to have been regular, the judgment should be affirmed.

Opinion:
FOX, J.
There was no bill of exceptions filed in this cause and the case is here by appeal upon the record proper.
The record discloses that on November 2,1903, the prosecuting attorney of Ripley county, Missouri, filed in the circuit court of said county an information charging the defendant with taking a female person, under the age of eighteen years, from her mother, who had legal charge of the person of- said female child, for the purpose of concubinage and cohabitation with him as man and wife, which acts are prohibited and denounced by section 1842, Revised Statutes 1899.
Defendant waived formal arraignment and entered his plea of not guilty. Upon a trial by a jury a verdict of guilty was returned and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. Judgment and sentence was entered of record in accordance with the verdict, and from this judgment defendant appeals.
The proceedings during the progress of the trial .have not been preserved by the bill of exceptions and none is on file before us, and an examination of the record proper discloses substantial regularity; hence, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Gantt, J., concurs; Burgess, P. J., absent.