The appellants were charged by information in the Circuit Court of Cape Girаrdeau County with the unlawful possession of whiskey. Tried to a jury, the court, after heаring the State’s evidence, discharged Ed Kaiser; and the jury at the close of *524 the ease returned a verdict finding H. G. Kaiser guilty and assessing bis punishment at a fine of five hundrеd dollars. From this verdict and the judgment rendered thereon he has' appeаled to this court. The case is here by reason of the interposition of а constitutional question.
I. We glean the foregoing facts from what is termed a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court. This transcript embodies neither a full and correct copy of the record proper nor of thе bill of exceptions. It is fatally defective in regard to the record prоper in that it contains nothing which should have been inserted therein, except the information. The bill of exceptions is likewise incomplete in that the mоtions to suppress the evidence and quash the search warrant are аttempted to be preserved in the record proper, while the entry of the judgment which should have been preserved in the record proper is mаde a part of the bill of exceptions. In addition to this comedy of errors there are no record entries concerning the swearing of the jury, the trial, the verdict, the judgment, the filing and overruling of the motion for a new trial and the granting оf the appeal.
II. Upon an appeal a compliancе' with the requirements of the statute (Sec. 4102, as amended, Laws 1925, p. 199), is a condition рrecedent to the right of review in this court without which the right cannot be maintained. If the defects in the transcript were limited to the commingling 'of record entriеs with the exceptions this alone would suffice to preclude a review of the errors complained of. In a criminal case nothing short of a “full transcript of the record” will entitle an appellant to be heard on appeal. [Sec. 4102, as amended, supra; State v. Hall, 312 Mo. l. c. 446 and cases сited; State v. Brown, 279 S. W. (Mo.) 98.] This construction of the statute does not relieve the court from the duty of examining the record. This duty is mandatory. [Sec. 4106, R. S. 1919; State v. Hodges, 295 S. W. (Mo.) 786; State v. Hersh,
Our Rule Thirteen, requiring an examination of rеcord entries and matters of exception regardless of the place in the transcript where they may appear, has no applicаtion to the review of criminal cases. No abstract is authorized in perfеcting the appeal in such cases, as we have stated in defining the duty of an appellant to bring up a full transcript, nor is the limitation of the rule to be mеasured •by the statute (Sec. 4106, supra), alone, but it is evident from the express reference in Rule Thirteen to Rules Eleven and Twelve, which apply only to civil cases and also to Section 1479, Revised Statutes 1919, to which Rule Eleven makes express reference in defining its application.
*525 In ruling upon the procedure in cases of the character here under discussion we have either affirmed the judgment or dismissed the appeal. The former course has beеn pursued where the condition of the record proper was sufficiently сomplete to authorize a review of the same. The latter course has been pursued where, as in the instant case, enough did not appeаr in the record to authorize a review. -To constitute a record within the meaning of the statute it must be a complete record. Under such a state of facts a dismissal of the appeal is the only alternative. It is so ordered.