State v. Hirsch
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Fourth District Court. The averment that the goods sold were not the growth, produce, or manufacture of this State is peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, and should be established by him in his defense. (1 Am. Crim. Law, §§ 614-15, 6th ed.; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422.)
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The appellant was indicted under the first section of the statute concerning peddlers, for selling goods, wares, and merchandise not the growth, produce, or manufacture of this State, without license. (2 Wagn. Stat. 979, § 1.) On the trial, the prosecution gave evidence proving the acts of selling and going from place to place, but no evidence was introduced to establish the character of the goods sold. The trial was before the court without a jury; and the appellant asked an instruction that, before the court could find him guilty, it must believe from the evidence that he dealt as a peddler…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Schmidt v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- Wheat v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1840
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of Tarkio v. LoydMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- State v. KuhukeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- State v. LangleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- Wolf v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- In re WatsonDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 1882