City of St. Louis v. Fitz
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. The association of defendant should have been presented to the jury, by the evidence and the instruction, to have been for the purpose of rendering assistance to the dangerous class, proscribed by the ordinance. That is evidently the purport of the ordinance, or it is without authority of law.
Read the full summary
Jlppeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. The association of defendant should have been presented to the jury, by the evidence and the instruction, to have been for the purpose of rendering assistance to the dangerous class, proscribed by the ordinance. That is evidently the purport of the ordinance, or it is without authority of law. (Rex vs. Woodfall, 5 Burr., 2667; 14 Mo., 561; O’Connell vs. Reg., 11 Cl. and E., 155 ; Rex vs. Kenrick, 5 Q. B., 61 ; Brown’s Com., (2d Ed.) 870.) II. The offense should be stated with particularity, that the defendant may be able to meet the charge. (State vs.…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
The defendant was charged in the Police Court of the city of St. Louis, with violating the ninth clause of the first section of article 4, chapter 20, of the city ordinances, “by knowingly associating with persons having the reputation of being thieves and prostitutes, previous to August 21, 1871.”
The trial resulted in liis conviction by the Police court, and the imposition of a fine of five hundred dollars. An appeal was taken to the Criminal Court, and the defendant was again tried and convicted, and the same fine inflicted.
On the trial, the court instructed the jury, “ that if they…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Ex parte SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- State v. BurgdoerferSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Ex Parte Clem McCarverCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1898
- People v. PieriNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.