City of Columbia v. Dorsey
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Boone Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Hockaday, Judge. (1) The court erred in sustaining defendant’s motion to quash the complaint on the first ground of objection because the information failed to specify the quantity and kind of intoxicating liquors alleged to have been sold by defendants. State v. Baskett, 52 Mo. App. 389; State v. Hendrix, 98 Mo. 374; State v. Nixdorf, 46 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Boone Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Hockaday, Judge. (1) The court erred in sustaining defendant’s motion to quash the complaint on the first ground of objection because the information failed to specify the quantity and kind of intoxicating liquors alleged to have been sold by defendants. State v. Baskett, 52 Mo. App. 389; State v. Hendrix, 98 Mo. 374; State v. Nixdorf, 46 Mo. App. 494; ' State v. Pittman, 76 Mo. 56. (2) An indictment which charges the defendants with having made several sales of intoxicating liquors at the same time charges but one offense. State v. McAdoo,…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
This action originated in the recorder’s ' court of Columbia, and is for the prosecution of defendant for the violation of a city ordinance. When the case got into the circuit court, to which it was appealed from the city court, defendant filed a motion to quash the information, basing said motion on several distinct grounds not necessary to state. From a judgment sustaining this motion to quash, the plaintiff city has appealed.
At the threshold, defendant insists that plaintiff is not entitled to be heard on the court’s action in sustaining the motion to quash, since it failed to except to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. WallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- State v. HarveySupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- City of St. Louis v. BrooksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. VincentSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Loudon v. KingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.