Case Name: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. FRED WALTERS et al., Appellants
Court: St. Louis Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1910-04-19
Citations: 148 Mo. App. 52
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. FRED WALTERS et al., Appellants.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 52–52

Head Matter:
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. FRED WALTERS et al., Appellants.
St. Louis Court of Appeals,
April 19, 1910.
1. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS: Extension of Time for Filing: Ineffective, When. An extension of time for filing a bill of exceptions granted after the expiration of tbe period first fixed is ineffective.
2. APPELLATE PRACTICE: No Exception to Overruling of Motion for New Trial. Where no exception is saved to tbe overruling of a motion for a new trial, nothing is left for review, on appeal, except the record proper.
Appeal from St, Louis County Circuit .Court. — Son. Roht. G. Ryors, Judge.
Affirmed.
J. G. McAtee and Guy A. Thompson for appellants.
E. W. Mills, S. P. McChesney and T. M. Pierce for respondent.

Opinion:
GOODE, J.
This is the second hearing of the appeal in the present case. The defendants were convicted of assault and battery and were fined fifty dollars each. At the first hearing our attention was not called to the fact that there was no bill of exceptions in the case. When the appeal was allowed, the court, in term time, granted sixty days from August 28, 1907, to file a bill of exceptions. Afterwards, and on October 28th, the time was extended, but at the date of the extension the period first fixed had expired and hence the extension was ineffective. [Powell v. Sherwood, 162 Mo. 605.] Besides that defect, which prevents an examination of the errors assigned, we observe no exception was saved to the overruling of the motion for new trial. This omission would leave nothing for review except the record proper, wherein no error occurs.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.