State v. Kesslering
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL FROM THE ST. LOUIS CRIMINAL COURT The criminal court has jurisdiction. The terms “crime,” “offence,” and “criminal offence” used in any statute, mean any offence punishable by line or imprisonment, or both. Sect. 39, Art. 9, concerning crimes and- punishments, Rev. Code, 1845, p. 415. The acts charged are not double in the sense which vitiates an indictment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE ST. LOUIS CRIMINAL COURT The criminal court has jurisdiction. The terms “crime,” “offence,” and “criminal offence” used in any statute, mean any offence punishable by line or imprisonment, or both. Sect. 39, Art. 9, concerning crimes and- punishments, Rev. Code, 1845, p. 415. The acts charged are not double in the sense which vitiates an indictment. The acts charged constitute the same offence- It has been repeatedly held that several distinct acts oí selling may be charged in the same count against a grocer or dram shop keeper, so several assaults maybe charged in one count.…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Ryland.
delivered- the. opinion of the court.
This was an indictment against the defendant, John Kesslering, upon the statute concerning “billiard tables.” The fifth section of the act is in the following words: “Every person who shall keep or permit to he used and kept, any billiard table, without having a license therefor, shall forfeit and pay four hundred dollars for the use of the State, to he recovered by indictment.” The indictment in this case is in the following words, viz:
State of Missouri, County of St. Louis.
SS''
St. Louis Criminal Court, January Term, 1848.
“The grand jurors of…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. HaywardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. TerrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. BennettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- State v. SchnettlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- State v. KruegerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.