Legal Opinion

Ex parte Jilz

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1876PublishedCited by 44 opinions

Petition for Habeas Corpus. I. The sentence of Jilz by the Court of Criminal Correction was valid, because: ' 1st. It was1 in conformity with the general law of the State prescribing the punishment for criminal abortion. (Wagn. Stat., 450, §34.) 2nd. The 32nd section of the Act of 1869 (Session.Laws of 1869, p. 199), affixing a different and milder penalty for the same offense, when committed in St. Louis County, is unconstitutional and void. (Am.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtNorton, Judge

The petitioner on the 12th of August, 1876, was tried in the St. Louis court of criminal correction and was convicted of criminal abortion, and was sentenced by said court to imprisonment in the St. Louis county jail for the term of one year and to the payment of a fine of $500. Under said sentence he was committed to the jail of said county, and there remained until the 22d day of August, 1876, when he applied to James J. Lindley. a judge of the circuit court of St. Louis county for a writ of habeas corpus, which was by said judge issued, and on a hearing of the same, the said Jilz was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

Ex parte PageSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872

3Cited by44 opinions

State ex rel. Durner v. HueginWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
State ex rel. Whiteside v. First Judicial District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1900
Weir v. MarleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
In re ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
State v. WearSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.