
    The State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Merritt S. Arnold, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    November, 1893.
    Appellate Practice: filing motion fob new trial. The motion for a new trial must he filed within four days after the rendering of the judgment, or the appellate court will not consider it, or any errors or exceptions committed or taken during the trial.
    
      Appeal from the Clay Circuit Court. — Hon. James M. ■ Sandusky, Judge.
    Aeeirmed.
    
      W. J. Courtney and W. H. Woodson, for appellant.
    
      B. F. Walker, Morton Jourdan, for respondent.
    (1) The record in this case discloses the fact that the motion for new trial was not filed within the'statutory period of four days. The defendant having failed to file his motion in time, neither it, nor any errors alleged to have occurred during the trial, nor any exceptions to the same, can be considered here. Bevised Statutes, 1889, sec. 2243; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542; State ex rel. v. Mason, .31 Mo. App. 211. (2) This being true, the case must be determined upon the record. The information, following the language of the statute, clearly charges the offense of which the defendant stands convicted. The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed and the law permitted to take its course.
   Smith, P. J.

— The defendant was tried and convicted by the circuit court of Clay county for the crime of petty larceny. Erom the judgment against him he has appealed.

The record in this case discloses the fact that the motion for new trial was not filed within the statutory period of four days. The verdict was returned and the judgment rendered against defendant in this case on the twenty-ninth day of October, 1891, and the motion for new trial was filed on the fourth day of November, of the same year. It is absolutely necessary that the motion be filed within four days after the rendering of the judgment. The defendant having failed to file his motion in time, neither it, nor any errors alleged to have occurred during the trial, nor any exceptions to the same, can be considered here. Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 2243; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542; State ex rel. v. Mason, 31 Mo. App. 211.

And since there appears no errors upon the face of the record the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

All concur.  