
    STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error, v. WILLIAM L. DANNAHOWER, Plaintiff in Error.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    February 7, 1910.
    BILL OF EXCEPTIONS: Extension of Time: Record Proper. An extension of time to file a bill of exceptions must be shown by tbe record proper.
    Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court. — Eon. Ralph 8. Latshaw, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      Clyde Taylor, special prosecutor, for defendant in error.
    (1) Tbe motion for new trial was filed after the time limited in the statute, and for that reason nothing occurring at the trial is presented to this court for review. R. S. 1899, sec. 2689; State v. Pritchett, 219 Mo. 696,119 S. W. 386. To the same effect see the following cases: State v. Rosenblatt, 185 Mo. 114; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 591; State v. Maddox, 153 Mo. 473. (2) The action of the lower court upon the motion to quash is not open for review in this court, because such motion is not preserved in any bill of ■ exceptions properly presented to this court. It is true that the record proper shows that a motion to quash was filed and was by the court overruled. This, however, is not sufficient. In order for this court to review the propriety of the action of the lower court on motion, it is essential that such motion, and exceptions to the action of the court thereon, must be preserved in the bill of exceptions. Even if the so-called bill of exceptions was open for the scrutiny of this court it would show only that the defendant had a fair trial, free from error prejudicial to him, and that the conviction in the case was righteous. State v. Hosmer, 85 Mo. 588; 2 G-reenleaf (6th Ed.), sec. 423; 25 Cyc. 581. “The burden of proof is upon the defendant to establish the truth of the charge.” (3) The, State having .proved that the defendant caused the libel to be printed, and that the same was delivered into defendant’s possession, the presumption of law is that he caused the libelous matter to be placed in the hands of all those who subsequently received it. Sherwood, Criminal Law, 698.
    
      Bruce Barnett and W. W. Calvin, for plaintiff in error, filed no brief.
   ELLISON, J.

Defendant was arraigned and convicted of libel on an information by the prosecuting attorney of Jackson county. He appealed to this court. Afterwards he dismissed the appeal and sued out a writ of error. In obedience to that writ there has been sent to us the record of the proceedings and trial in the criminal court. Chief among these is a voluminous bill of the exceptions taken at the trial, containing the evidence in detail, as well as instructions, etc. It appears that this bill was not made up, signed and filed at the term at which the exceptions were taken, but at a subsequent term. The record does not show any leav» of court extending the time. The bill itself recites that there was an extension, but that, as has been many times ruled, is not sufficient. It must be shown by the record proper. We are thus left without right to look into any matter of exception concerning the trial and hence have only the record proper for examination.

We have examined it, and find no error therein. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

All concur.  