*1 brings XI. This relating alleged ns the final assignment, im- proper argument on the special prosecutors. one of the language complained of is: copper "This saddle colored de- —this fendant, violating form, brute in man’s only God’s law —” objection which an made, request counsel ‘‘ reprimanded. ruling Sustained, the court was: because such argument personal views, smacks of and the are instructed to disregard it, hereby and counsel is reprimanded and censured for using personal argument abuse.” While the improper, erroneous, we think sufficiently cured the nature of the just reprimand quoted. . proper, examined and find information, judgment verdict and sufficient in form and substance. appearing No reversible record, error should J., Ellison, Tipton, -be affirmed. It ordered. J., is so P. concur. Friday, August 16, Date of execution set 1935. Appellant. (2d) W. 911.
The State v. Tom Ragg, Two, July Division Barney Beed, <& L. Harry ap- Irwin Bushman and Buchanan for pellant.
Boy Attorney Hewitt, B. Assist- McKittrich, General, and Coveil Attorney General, respondent. ant
COOLEY, C. In the County Court of Camden Circuit defend- ant was burglary larceny convicted of and punishment and his years’ assessed at four imprisonment in penitentiary, years two burglary for the years and larceny. two for the After duly allocution he was sentenced in accordance with verdict appealed. and has only proper. have review The
granted 19, 14, on October 1933. 1934, On November there was filed in this court a purporting exceptions. document be a bill of appended has not or attached to it nor does it contain a certificate genuineness, of the clerk of court as to its correctness or authenticity. transcript No filed. At was then January 3, September, January Call of our Term 1934, and on given 1935, appellant a transcript asked and leave to file of the day record and on that filed a document certified cir- County transcript cuit clerk of Camden to be a of the proper. record April 26, On transcript patently 1935', insufficient. without transcript complete filed a more further leave of proper is proper. The first record thus: certified at the end thereof Missouri
"State of } SS' "County of CamdenJ Coun- Camden Court of the Circuit Lewis, Clerk of "I, Frank M. true foregoing be a certify and hereby the above ty, Missouri, above entitled in the circuit said record of our copy of the my appears the same written as year day and on the cause office. affixed my hand set I have hereunto testimony whereof "In Missouri, this Camdenton, court, my at office seal of our said December, 1934. day 24th Lewis
"Frank M. Court Circuit "Clerk County, Missouri.” Camden "(SEAL)” this end thereof 1935, has at the April
certificate: “State of Missouri } ss‘
“County of Camden) Lewis, within
“I, Frank M. Clerk of the Circuit Court foregoing County State, said a true hereby Ragg proceedings vs. the ease of State of Missouri Tom my appears defendant as the on file of record office. same I testimony my “In whereof set hand and affixed hereunto my office, the seal of April, A. D. 22nd Lewis, “Frank Clerk.” M. Circuit “(SEAL)” ’ Neither contains a April entry, 26, 1935, shows this record made 15, 1934, October at the Term of the Court: October “State Missouri
vs. *3 Ragg,
“Tom Defendant. exceptions
“Bill of filed.” If, gratia, mentioned, ex we consider the second though long the by leave after time limited filed without stat- enough perfecting expired, there before for the had is ute us to show that an information was a filed the circuit had, copy a thereof, empaneled that a and sworn and trial verdict, returned, copy guilty a verdict of a followed with being judgment, by copy of set out. allocution and a the time,— exceptions is in term' also shown that bill of a signed though not that filed was the record does show the so by by judge leave or the trial nor it allowed that exceptions itself re- the bill of purported order of court. cites, signature judge, that purported over the the trial defend- asks exceptions in his cause and “presents ant this his bill of signed, part a the be and made that same sealed ’’ accordingly October, 1934. done, 15th cause, which is this this facts only by bill itself those looking purported is to that But it each omits certificate to be ascertained. The clerk’s can and neither exceptions thereof any to a bill of or reference construction language by any reasonable that contains certificate exceptions bill of purported refer to include can be said to to or 14, 1934. filed here November exceptions bill of purported that a repeatedly have held au a that absent prove itself and copy thereof does not or precluded the circuit court we by the clerk thereof thentication bill. purported considering matters contained such from [See 18; v. State 288 S. W. (en banc), 1276, 315 Mo. v. State White 299, 331 Thomas, Mo. (2d) 491; v. (Mo.), 18 State Kelsay S. W. 293; (2d) 870, 69 W. 266; 334 Mo. S. Ross, v. (2d) 53 W. State S. 439 cited; v. (Mo.), (2d) 296, 69 S. W. State State v. Carel cases (2d) (Mo.), 718; Corey (Mo.), 71 S. W. State v. 69 W. Mele S. (2d) 297; Ottensmeyer, 754, (2d) 330 Mo. State v. S. W. 39.] original purported cases what be the
In some of the above-cited to exceptions filed in the circuit clerk’s officewas filed here. White, Harbes- supra; not done. v. should be State [See original (2d) (when 51 W. Such ton, Mo. 533.] signed filed), record of circuit court allowed, copies have remain there. In other cases cited and should applied rule, and filed here and both situations we been purported copy or thereof does logically so, purported bill that' properly cannot considered unless authenti- prove itself and required clerk, by the statute. us cated to (Mo. Ann., p. Stat. statute, -3757, Revised Statutes Section one) this- to 3295), the class of (in cases of requires the appellate court full clerk have the circuit State including of the bill of [See right appeal, the statutory' mode of Such' is the Ross, v. supra.] to follow. statutory. not difficult being The statute is itself of appeal cannot of- appellate court substantially followed the Except it be required which it is record on before has ficially know that it pass. In cases some cited above we have said did not show a bill had been filed. Such grounds observations made rather as additional were tending fortify the conclusions reached and as such conclusions ground than as statements of the fundamental such conclusions. any case, can thereof, Absent authentication as in how we know *4 transcript purported that the bill is bill which of filed here the the says contemplate was filed below? The statute does not filing original provides copy the bill. It that a here on of the far, thus a thereof be filed. If the followed and statute.is fact that it is in copy, unauthentieated, filed, is can we know but how assumption, while the copy? left to a In case are true either we and the hand us under provides the fact certified to statute that be records. court, of its of the trial custodian seal of an officer —the pur- supra, filed here a document White, there was In State v. transcript original original porting bill of be the to exceptions a that bill of not show proper filed here did filed, part as Later, however, the below. had been filed dismiss the motion to suggestions opposition the State’s of in to his record that the the effect clerk to appeal, a of the certificate circuit a filing exceptions bill of of a court showed the of the circuit not show certificate does “The named. This court said: therein, mentioned the one is on file here exceptions that bill of the nor does it refer the bill here to or copy that it is a of true the alleged one to have been filed.” The court that of held the bill exceptions not prove “and, did itself in the absence of a certificate of authenticity the circuit clerk as to its pre- we correctness, considering cluded from passing upon same in the merits the of case.” The was affirmed proper. on the record appears holding case us authority to to be though that even the shows that a bill exceptions of was yet filed in the circuit court if instrument filed purporting the here exceptions by be the of or a bill thereof is not authenticated the certificate of the circuit clerk cannot be it considered. showing
Appellant contends that the in the certified of filed, together the a exceptions record that with case, purports the fact that what to be the bill of in the though any clerk, of unauthenticated certificate had lodged previously sup- is cites in been in this He sufficient. port Prince, 315, 167 W. contention. v. Mo. S. [State v. 535; 695; 168 S. Washington, Mo. W. and State 285 W. cases not Perkins, App. 349, 220 Mo. Those do 1021.] sustain his contention. bill ex- Prince, supra, the the In State v. State contended that ceptions of the'record considered because the could bill the had ordered the not show that trial court proper did been in vaca- part record. The had made of the bill filed and judge appended thereto recited trial tion and certificate the the rec- made it filed and approved that he ordered ord, having been circumstances, that in such The court held it without order vacation, to file in the clerk authorized judge’s certificate than contained court or other order signed by him. showing approved and been that it had stated was contained however, of the bill opinion, in the duly certified. and, transcript, presumably, opinion and the bill contrary appears in the to the No intimation question sufficient authentication considered. No exceptions was v. State cites and follows Washington, supra, v. appears. State point. facts on that or statement without discussion Prince adjudged question presented Perkins, supra, v. State In in the case, except that Prince presented was similar to that leave time term was filed Perkins case In the Perkins transcript. appeared in entry that effect record circuit by *5 certified transcript, case, case, Prince copy clerk, included distinguishable clearly are on relied said cases they ruled and were upon which facts us in the before from the case adjudicated. question They point presented are not question in the instant case. presented this case consider the cannot disregarding plain -provisions, of the statute and estab- without confusion, in lishing breed precedent that could but tend to- flagrant disregard of the statu- law and lead to even more perhaps fol- tory requirements, which, said, difficult to as we not. low. This to do. we decline sufficiently proper. The information
We find error in the record no judgment larceny. are in charges burglary due Verdict accorded before sen- Defendant was form and sufficient. allocution It follows that pronounced. tence (7(7., concur. B'ohUnff, it is affirmed. Westimes must be and C., adopted foregoing by Cooley, opinion
PEE CUEIAM: —The judges All concur. . court. opinion as the Gauess, Appellant. Wright, John William alias (2d) 7. 85 S. W. July Two,
Division appellant.
Chas. B. Jones for