State v. Donnegan
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. Evidence of stealing a gelding will support an indictment for stealing a horse. (Gravely v. Ford, 2 Ld. Ray. 1209; R. C. 1855, p. 1175, § 22, & p. 1176, § 27; Hooker v. State, 4 Ohio, Ham. 348; Baldwin v. People, 1 111., Scam. 304.) II. It is lawful for a circuit attorney to enter a nolle prosequi to a part of a count in an indictment. (1 Chit. Crim.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. Evidence of stealing a gelding will support an indictment for stealing a horse. (Gravely v. Ford, 2 Ld. Ray. 1209; R. C. 1855, p. 1175, § 22, & p. 1176, § 27; Hooker v. State, 4 Ohio, Ham. 348; Baldwin v. People, 1 111., Scam. 304.) II. It is lawful for a circuit attorney to enter a nolle prosequi to a part of a count in an indictment. (1 Chit. Crim. L. 480, n. a.; Commonwealth v. Tuck, 20 Pick. 356, 364, &c.; Comm. v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 177; Comm. v. McMangle, 1 Mass. 516; Comm. v. Lewis, 1 Mass. 517; Rex v. Butter-worth Moss et al., 1 Russ. & Ry. 520;…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
The defendant was indicted for stealing a horse, mare, buggy and set of harness. Before the trial, the circuit attorney announced that he would not further prosecute the indictment against the defendant so far as the same relates to the charge of the larceny of the buggy and set pf harness.
We cannot see that there was any error in this prejudicial to the defendant. At the trial, evidence was given of the larceny of a gelding, and objection was made that it did not support the indictment for stealing a horse. There is no force in the objection.
Judgment affirmed.
Judges Bay and Dryden concur.
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. MatejouskySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- State v. GoochSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- State v. CollinsMontana Supreme Court · 1917
- State v. BucklesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.