
    The State v. Berry, Appellant.
    
    DIVISION TWO.
    Practice in Supreme Court: bill of exceptions : vacation filing. Where the errors complained of appear only in what purports to be a bill of exceptions filed in vacation and the record nowhere shows that the time to file the bill was extended by order of court, or that it was filed by order of court, and no error of the record proper appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
    
      Appeal from Greene Criminal Court. — Hon. M. Oliver, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      T. W. Kersey, Alrnus Harrington and George Pepperdine for appellant.
    
      John M. Wood, Attorney General, for the State.
    The record shows that the bill of exceptions was not filed “ during the term of the court,” but in vacation, and there is no order entered of record allowing time to defendant to file such bill; it was, therefore, not filed in time and cannot be considered. R. S. 1889, sec. 2168; State v. Hill, 98 Mo. 570.
   Thomas, J.

Defendant was tried in the criminal court of Greene county on change of venue from Taney county, for a felonious assault, and was by a jury found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years. He has appealed to this court, and urges various alleged errors for which the judgment of the trial court should be reversed. The errors alleged, however, appear only in what purports to be a bill of exceptions filed in vacation of tbe court, and the record nowhere shows that the time to file this bill of exceptions was extended by the order of the court or that it was filed by the order of the court, and no error of the record proper being assigned and none being found, upon the authority of the cases of State v. Hill, 98 Mo. 570, and State v. Broderick, 79 Mo. 622, the judgment is affirmed.

All of division number 2 concur.  