203 Mo. 681 | Mo. | 1907
The prosecution in this cause was begun by the filing of an information by the prosecuting attorney of Lawrence county, duly verified, charging the defendant with forgery. The information contained thirteen counts, but all of these were dismissed except the third, which is in the following form:
“In .the circuit court of Lawrence county, State of Missouri.
“State of Missouri, Plaintiff, vs. G. A. Paul, Defendant.
“Harvey Davis, prosecuting attorney, in and for the county of Lawrence, in the State of Missouri, acting herein upon information and belief, informs the-court that one G. A. Paul, at the county of Lawrence, in the State of Missouri, on the 25th of May, 1904, unlawfully and feloniously did forge, counterfeit and falsely make a certain instrument, in writing, to-wit, a certain promissory note, purporting to be the act of one*684 J. R. Reed, by which a pecuniary demand and obligation for the payment of sixty-two and '65-100 dollars by the said J. R. Reed to Gr. A. Paul, or order, ninety days after date purported to be created, which said forged, counterfeit and falsely made instrument, in writing, to-wit, the said promissory note, is of the tenor following, that is to say:
“ ‘$62.65 Aurora, Mo., 5-25-1904.
“ ‘Ninety days after date I promise to pay to Gr. A. Paul, or order, sixty-two and 65-100 dollars for value received with eight per cent interest per annum thereon from date, which interest shall be due and payable annually, and if the interest thereon be not paid annually or when due, the same shall, when due, be added to and become a part of the principal and bear, interest at the same rate.
“.‘(Signed) J. R. Reed. Post Office — City'.’ with intent then and there and thereby, unlawfully and feloniously to injure and defraud, against the peace and dignity of the State. Harvey Davis,
“Pros. Atty.
“Harvey Davis, prosecuting attorney, makes oath and says that the facts stated in the above and foregoing information are true according to his best information and belief. Harvey Davis.
“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of October, 1905'.
“(Seal) M. B. Gardner, Circuit Clerk.”
The. regular judge of the court was disqualified and Honorable Hugh Dabbs, judge of the Jasper Circuit Court, was called in to try the cause, and at the December term, 1905, the trial was had and the defendant convicted and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of two years. In due time he filed his motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, both of which were overruled, and he
Various errors are assigned for the reversal of this cause both in the oral argument and in the brief of counsel filed in behalf of defendant.
1. At the outset, the question arises as to what errors this court can review in the state of the record before us. It is insisted by the Attorney-General that there is nothing before the court except the record proper, because the bill of exceptions was not filed within the time allowed by the court. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel for the defendant that, inasmuch as he presented the bill of exceptions at the chambers of Judge Dabbs, who presided in the cause, on the 15th of August, 1906, and Judge Dabbs was at that time absent from the State and did not return until after the time allowed for signing the bill, the bill should be considered as a part of the record. The authority of a judge of the court to sign a bill of exceptions in vacation, and making it a part of the record, is purely statutory in this State. The same rule prevails in both criminal and civil cases. [R. S. 1899, sec. 728.] In the construction of that statute, it has been uniformly ruled by this court that where the period beyond the trial term of court granted by the court in which to file a bill of exceptions, has expired, neither the court nor judge in vacation can extend it, and the bill of exceptions filed in pursuance of such a void order will not be considered on appeal. [State v. Scott, 113 Mo. 559; State v. Apperson, 115 Mo. 470; Powell v. Sherwood, 162 Mo. l. c. 611, and cases there cited.] Accordingly, it must be ruled that the bill of
2. Looking, then, to the record, proper, we discover no valid objection to the form of the information. The information charges an offense under section 2009, Revised Statutes 1899; the record is entirely free from error in the arraignment of the defendant, the impanelling of the jury, the return of the verdict and the sentence of the court. No error appearing, the judgment of the circuit court must be and is affirmed.