City of St. Louis v. Ringold
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. — . Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, judge.' (1) Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained. (2) The trial court erred in admitting in evidence section 1518, clause 1, of Ordinance No. 22,902, because no such ordinance was pleaded in the complaint. (3) There was no evidence upon which to convict the defendant. Kansas City v. Whitman, 70 Mo. App. 633. The ordinance must be alleged and proved as alleged.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. — . Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, judge.' (1) Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained. (2) The trial court erred in admitting in evidence section 1518, clause 1, of Ordinance No. 22,902, because no such ordinance was pleaded in the complaint. (3) There was no evidence upon which to convict the defendant. Kansas City v. Whitman, 70 Mo. App. 633. The ordinance must be alleged and proved as alleged. St. Louis v. Roche, 128 Mo. 544. The courts will not take judicial notice of an ordinance, hence the rule that you must plead and…
1Opinion of the CourtValliant, J.
— Information was filed in one of the police courts of the city against the appellant, charging him with keeping a bawdy house, “contrary to the ordinance in such case made and provided;” on which information he was tried and convicted and fined $50. He appealed to the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, where a trial de novo was had and he was again convicted and fined $50; from that judgment he appealed to this court. In the bill of exceptions it is said that in the Court of Criminal Correction appellant filed a demurrer to the information which was overruled and exception taken; if…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. WeitzelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Kansas City v. WhitmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897