State v. Wall
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court. I. The court below erred in sustaining the demurrer because the indictment is good for robbery without the clause complained of by the defendants, and the clause claimed to be objectionable may be rejected as surplusage — R. C. 1855', p. 574, § 20; Bishop’s Crirn. Law, §§ 966-7, 972, and following.
Read the full summary
Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court. I. The court below erred in sustaining the demurrer because the indictment is good for robbery without the clause complained of by the defendants, and the clause claimed to be objectionable may be rejected as surplusage — R. C. 1855', p. 574, § 20; Bishop’s Crirn. Law, §§ 966-7, 972, and following. Mere surplusage, when there is sufficient matter alleged to indicate the crime and the persons charged, does not invalidate an indictment — R. C. 1855, p. 1176, § 27. II. Although there might not, in the opinion of the court below, have been sufficient matter set…
1Opinion of the CourtWagNER, Judge
The respondents were indicted for robbery in the first degree. The indictment consisted of but one count, and charged that defendants on, &c., feloniously did make an assault upon the person of one J. W. Jones, then and there being, and him the said John W. Jones, in fear and danger of some immediate injury to his person, by assault and violence upon the same, then and there feloniously did put, and then and there, in the presence and against the will of him the said John W. Jones, one United States treasury note, &c., the goods and chattels and personal property of him the said John W:…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. FaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Putney v. SchmidtNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1911
- State v. ManningSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- State v. NationsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- State v. EmerichMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.