State v. Findley
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Hon. J. P. Hale, Judge. (1) The verdict is against the evidence. (2) The court permitted incompetent evidence to go to the jury; the testimony of the witness Smith, as to result of his examination of the tax books, should have been excluded. (3) The remarks of the prosecuting attorney, as to the excluded testimony of Skinner, constituted error.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Hon. J. P. Hale, Judge. (1) The verdict is against the evidence. (2) The court permitted incompetent evidence to go to the jury; the testimony of the witness Smith, as to result of his examination of the tax books, should have been excluded. (3) The remarks of the prosecuting attorney, as to the excluded testimony of Skinner, constituted error. State v. Lee, 66 Mo. 165; State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591. (4) The judgment should be reversed for the remarks of the judge made in the progress of the trial; they were comments on the evidence and prejudicial to the…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
The indictment in this case is based upon section 1326, Revised Statutes, 1879. The substance of the charge is that defendant on the fifteenth of January, 1884, being then the duly elected and qualified collector of Howell county, and having in his charge public moneys which he had received and collected by virtue of his office to the amount of seven thousand dollars, embezzled and converted the said moneys to his own use. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, with a sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
The errors assigned are, First, want of evidence to support the verdict; second,…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Bartley v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- United States v. MortimerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
- State v. NolandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Fowler v. WallaceIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Salem Traction Co. v. AnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1902
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.