State v. Young
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Dade Circuit Court. — Hon. B. G. Thurman, Judge. (1) Appellants.’ motion to quash the-information should have been sustained, for the reason that no offense prohibited by the laws of the state of Missouri was charged therein.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dade Circuit Court. — Hon. B. G. Thurman, Judge. (1) Appellants.’ motion to quash the-information should have been sustained, for the reason that no offense prohibited by the laws of the state of Missouri was charged therein. The intention was doubtless to charge a violation of section 4751, Revised Statutes 1909. But “dice and a blanket” are not such gambling devices as are prohibited by section 4750, Revised Statutes 1909, nor are they ejusdem generis with those devices. State v. Bryant, 90 Mo. 534; State v. Gilmore, 98 Mo. 206; State v. Elchman, 184 Mo. 193; State-v. Koock, 202…
1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.
Prosecution by information for gambling. This case originated in justice court and in that court, these defendants and one Robert Shields, who was jointly charged with them, were all convicted and appealed to the circuit court. In that court the appeal was dismissed as to Shields and upon trial by jury, the other defendants were convicted and have appealed to this court.
A motion to quash the information was filed, overruled, and exception saved. The formal parts of the information were in the usual form. The charging part of the information is as follows: £ ‘ That said defendants, Wm.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited20 opinions
- State v. RosenblattSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Theatre Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- State v. BryantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- State v. MurphySupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- State v. FaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. CoffeeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1931
- State v. ThomasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1922