State v. Roehm
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court. The indictment pursues the language of the statute in every particular, and is good. (Wagn. Stat., 1090, § 27 ; Id. 504, § 35; State vs. Stubblefield, 32 Mo., 563.) The offense committed was indictable under the law, as it existed at the time the same was preferred. Wagn.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court. The indictment pursues the language of the statute in every particular, and is good. (Wagn. Stat., 1090, § 27 ; Id. 504, § 35; State vs. Stubblefield, 32 Mo., 563.) The offense committed was indictable under the law, as it existed at the time the same was preferred. Wagn. Stat., 516. § 30. was re-enacted February 21,1871. (Vide Acts 1871, P- 34.) The offense, as appears from the indictment, was committed June 9th, 1872. The case of State vs. Huffsehmidt, (47 Mo., 73) therefore has no application.
1Opinion of the Court
Wagner, Judge,
delivered the. opinion of the court.
The-indictment alleged that the defendant did on the 9th day of June, 1872, unlawfully sell fermented and distilled liquors on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, contrary, etc.
To this indictment the defendant demurred, on the ground that no offense was charged known to the law, and that the violation of the statute was not set forth with the certainty that the law required. This demurrer was sustained by the court.
The statute declares that every person who shall expose for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or shall keep…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. MaloneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1946
- State v. BraunSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. KurtzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- State v. SauerburgerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- State v. StanleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.