State v. Schatt
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.— Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, Judge. (1) The evidence for the State was sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty. State v. Wellott, 54 Mo. 310; State v. Grannenmn, 132 Mo. 326; State v. Lipscomb, 52 Mo. 32; State v. Meek, 70 Mo. 355. (2) Tbe testimony offered by defendant as tending to show that tbe work and labor done by him on tbe Sunday in question was a work of necessity, was properly excluded.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.— Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, Judge. (1) The evidence for the State was sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty. State v. Wellott, 54 Mo. 310; State v. Grannenmn, 132 Mo. 326; State v. Lipscomb, 52 Mo. 32; State v. Meek, 70 Mo. 355. (2) Tbe testimony offered by defendant as tending to show that tbe work and labor done by him on tbe Sunday in question was a work of necessity, was properly excluded. State v. Frederick, 45 Ark. 347; State v. Stuckey, 98 Mo. App. 664; Commonwealth v. Wald-man, 140 Pa. St. 89. (3) The instruction given by the court…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
1. The defendant is a barber and proprietor of the Terminal Barber Shop situate in the Union Station at the City of St. Louis. He was tried and convicted on a charge of performing labor, that of a barber, on the Sabbath Day. The first argument addressed to the court for a reversal of the judgment is that there is no evidence in the record showing the offense to have been committed in the city of St. Louis. In other words, it said there is a total failure of proof with respect to the venue of the offense. The c: uninal law is penal and therefore the rules requiring precision 'in averment and…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Allen v. DuffieMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- State v. AmbsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
- McGrath v. MerwinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- State v. MeekSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- State v. GrannemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. Katz Drug CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1961
- State v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Pirkey Bros. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1922
- Gray v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Turney v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.