
    STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. SAM GLAGOVER, alias SAM GOLD, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    December 2, 1913.
    1. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT: Appellate Practice: Duty of Court to Examine Record. Although, on appeal from a judgment of conviction in a criminal prosecution, no briefs are filed and no assignment of error is made by appellant, it is the duty of the court to examine the record and pass judgment thereon, under Sec. 5312, R. S. 1909.
    2. LIBEL AND SLANDER: Criminal Slander: Sufficiency of Information, Judgment and Evidence. In a prosecution for falsely and maliciously charging another with having committed perjury, held that the information and the judgment were in due form and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
    
      Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. —Hon. Galvin N. Miller, Judge.
    Affirmed.
   ALLEN, J.

The defendant was convicted of having falsely and maliciously charged another with having committed a felony, to-wit, perjury. His punishment was assessed at a fine of $15' and costs, and he appeals.

No briefs: have been filed, and there are no assignments of error before us. It is our duty under the law, however, to examine the record and pass judgment thereupon.

A bill of exceptions was duly filed, and we have the testimony before us in the record. We have very carefully examined the record, and have been unable to perceive any reversible error therein. The information is in due form. The evidence on behalf of the State, consisting of the testimony of three witnesses', was amply sufficient to make a prima-facie case against the defendant. The evidence oh behalf of defendant consisted of his own testimony, which went to deny the speaking of the alleged slanderous words. The evidence is ample to sustain the conviction, and the judgment appears to be in due form.

The judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Reynolds, P. J., and Nortoni, J., concur.  