Legal Opinion

State v. Ostmann

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 11, 1906Published

Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. — Hon. James D. Barnett, Judge. (1) The information does not allege that the prosecuting attorney preferred the charge “under his oath of office.” Section 2750 so demands. And aside from the mandate of the statute, the term “information” requires such allegation. The information authorized by article 2, sec. 12, of the Constitution, is one sufficient at common law. State v. Klem, 79 Mo. 515; State y. Briscoe, 80 Mo. 643; State y.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. — Hon. James D. Barnett, Judge. (1) The information does not allege that the prosecuting attorney preferred the charge “under his oath of office.” Section 2750 so demands. And aside from the mandate of the statute, the term “information” requires such allegation. The information authorized by article 2, sec. 12, of the Constitution, is one sufficient at common law. State v. Klem, 79 Mo. 515; State y. Briscoe, 80 Mo. 643; State y. Anderson, 84 Mo. 524; State v. Fletchall, 31 Mo. App. 296. (2) An information disclosing on its face that it is based upon a…

1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.

The appellants’ bill of exceptions not haying been filed in the time allowed by the circuit court, we shall confine our examination of the errors assigned to those going to the record proper. The information is challenged as fatally defective. It accuses the appellants of having obstructed, resisted and opposed a constable of St. Charles county in the service of an execution and in the attempt to serve, execute and levy an execution by unlawfully, willfully, knowingly and by force and violence assaulting and beating him whilst in the discharge of his official duty. The process under which the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. RansbergerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
  2. State v. ParkerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. State v. HaleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
  4. State v. PhippsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
  5. State v. DavidsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API