Case Name: The State, Appellant, v. Henderson
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1891-10
Citations: 109 Mo. 292
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State, Appellant, v. Henderson.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 292–293

Head Matter:
The State, Appellant, v. Henderson.
DIVISION TWO.
Criminal Practice: motion to quash: bill oh exceptions. A motion to quash an indictment does not constitute a part of the record proper, and, unless preserved in the hijl of exceptions, the action of the court in sustaining it will not he reviewed.
Appeal from Callaway Circuit Coiwt. — Hon. J. A. Hockaday, Judge.
Affirmed.
John M. Wood, Attorney G-eneral, for the State.
I. W. Boulware, Bailey & Tincher and Snell dk Taylor for respondent.
No exception was taken, or objection saved, to the action of the court in sustaining the motion to quash the indictment, and, hence, the judgment should be affirmed.

Opinion:
Thomas, J.
The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Callaway county for wilfully failing to keep and render a true account of the fees received by him in his official capacity as clerk of the county court of said county, and for wilfully failing to pay into the treasury of said county fees, alleged to have been received by him as such clerk, in excess of the compensation allowed him by law. The defendant filed his motion to quash the indictment, which, being sustained, the state has brought the case here' by appeal.
The rule in this state is well settled that a motion to quash an indictment does not constitute a part of the record proper, and the motion in this case, not having been preserved by bill of exceptions, we cannot review the action of the court below in sustaining it. State v. Wall, 15 Mo. 208; State v. Gee, 79 Mo. 313; State v. Thurston, 83 Mo. 271; State v. Vincent, 91 Mo. 662.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
All concur.