State v. Murdock
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Charles Circuit Court. Insists that this court has jurisdiction of this case. This court is a tribunal created by the constitution, and where powers are conferred, and duties devolve upon it, by the constitution, no enactment of the legislature can take them away. The constitution, article 5th, sec. 3, says this court shall exercise a general superintending control over all inferior courts of law.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Charles Circuit Court. Insists that this court has jurisdiction of this case. This court is a tribunal created by the constitution, and where powers are conferred, and duties devolve upon it, by the constitution, no enactment of the legislature can take them away. The constitution, article 5th, sec. 3, says this court shall exercise a general superintending control over all inferior courts of law. The revised code of 1835, page 158, sec. 33, gives all courts power to issue all writs necessary to carry into effect their jurisdiction. In the case of the State vs. Foster, 2 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
Murdock was indicted and convicted for having in his possession counterfeit coins, with intent to utter them as true. The offence was not charged to have been done feloniously, nor was that word used in the indictment. The judgment was arrested, and the State has sued out this writ of error.
The having in one’s possession counterfeit coins, with intent to utter them as true, is made a felony by our statute. Every offence which is *732made a felony by statute, must be charged to have been done feloniously, whether it was a felony by' common law or not. The word feloni-ously is indispensably…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. ClaytonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- State v. DeffenbacherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- State v. McGrathSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- State v. GilbertSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857