Case Name: State of Missouri, Appellant, v. James Russell, Respondent
Court: St. Louis Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1897-02-23
Citations: 69 Mo. App. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Missouri, Appellant, v. James Russell, Respondent.
Judges: Judge Biggs concurs. Judge Bland not sitting.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
State of Missouri, Appellant, v. James Russell, Respondent.
St. Louis Court of Appeals,
February 23, 1897.
Criminal Law: indictment, motion to quash not reviewable, when. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, a motion to quash an indictment is not preserved for review. State v. Mora, 109 Mo. 292.
Appeal from the Crawford Circuit Court. — Hon. C. C. Bland, Judge.
Aeeibmed.
A. H. Harrison, prosecuting attorney, and C. D. Jamison, for appellant.
The words of the statute must be construed so as to give them effect if possible. Neemcm v. Smith, 50 Mo. 525; State v. Dieeling, 66 Id. 375;'Cooley’s Const. Lim. [4 Ed.] 223; Bish. Stat. Crimes [2 Ed.], 80, 82.
Cards are a gambling device under sections 3809, 3810, Eevised Statutes, 1889, though not so under section 3808.' State v. Purdom, 3 Mo. 115; State v. Ellis, 4 Id. 474; State v. Eubanks, 5 Id. 450; State v. Bates, 10 Id. 166; State v. Herryford, 19 Id. 377; State v. Skaggs, 33 Id. 92.
No brief filed for respondent.

Opinion:
Bond, J.
The defendant was indicted for gambling. He filed a motion to quash, which was sustained. The state appealed. No bill of exceptions was taken.
A motion to quash an indictment is not part of the record proper, hence it is not preserved' for review, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. State v. Flora, 109 Mo. 292.
The judgment herein is affirmed.
Judge Biggs concurs. Judge Bland not sitting.