Armstrong v. Marmaduke
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Lafayette Circuit Cowrt. I. The testimony excluded was clearly competent and should have been admitted. This is not like the case of. Harriman v. Stratton, 24 Mo. 324. II. This case is founded on the statute of our state, not on the common law, and is clearly within the statute. III. The burning of the barn and stables, and the hemp and corn and oats and hay stored in the barn and stables, is arson in the third degree under, our statute.
Read the full summary
Error to Lafayette Circuit Cowrt. I. The testimony excluded was clearly competent and should have been admitted. This is not like the case of. Harriman v. Stratton, 24 Mo. 324. II. This case is founded on the statute of our state, not on the common law, and is clearly within the statute. III. The burning of the barn and stables, and the hemp and corn and oats and hay stored in the barn and stables, is arson in the third degree under, our statute. (R. C. 1855, p. 571, § 5; 645, § 37.) I. The property against which the offence was committed was the barn in plaintiff’s possession and not. the…
1Opinion of the CourtEwing, Judge
This was an action for an injury to plaintiff’s property alleged to have been committed by defendant’s slave, in burning a barn which contained it.
On the trial, the plaintiff offered to prove the value of the contents of the barn, and the rejection of this evidence is the only error assigned.
This action is founded on the statute which declares that “ every person who shall be injured by the commission of any offence against his person as specified in the second article, or against his property as specified in the third article of this act, committed by a slave, shall have an action against…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stratton v. HarrimanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857