Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903

State v. Dunham

Supreme Court of Missouri · Decided November 17, 1903 · Burgess, Fox, Gantt

178 Mo. 1; 76 S.W. 1008; 1903 Mo. LEXIS 331

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Brockschmidt v. St. Louis & Meramec River Railroad (Mo. 1907)
Edmondson v. Hotels Statler Co. (Mo. 1924)
State Ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. Hedrick (Mo. 1922)
Kinlen v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. (Mo. 1909)
State v. Haney (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)
Lynch v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co. (Mo. 1907)
Van Horn v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. 1906)
Hecker v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1904)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

GANTT, P. J.

The defendant was indicted in Caldwell county for an assault with intent to kill Ed Nichols. He was tried and convicted, and from the sentence imposed has appealed to this court. The defendant is not represented in this court, and has filed no *2brief, but under the statute we have been required to go through the whole record to ascertain if prejudicial error was committed against him. We find that no exception was taken or saved to the overruling of his motion for a new trial, and we' are therefore restricted to the record proper. [State v. Weinegard, 168 Mo. 490.] The indictment is in due form; the arraignment, regular; and the summoning and impaneling of the jury, and the return of the verdict and sentence thereon are in all respects in proper form. The judgment is affirmed.

Burgess and Fox, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.