State v. Alsup
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court. — Eon. C. A. Den-ton, Special Judge. It is apparent from the information that the defendant was not only appointed, hut his duties were defined by the ordinance. He, as such enumerator, had no existence, or duty to perform except as defined by the ordinance pleaded.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court. — Eon. C. A. Den-ton, Special Judge. It is apparent from the information that the defendant was not only appointed, hut his duties were defined by the ordinance. He, as such enumerator, had no existence, or duty to perform except as defined by the ordinance pleaded. Then it results if he did what he is charged with doing, it was in violation of the ordinance and should have been proceeded against under the provisions of section 5924, Revised Statutes 1899, which conferred exclusive, original jurisdiction on the mayor and police judge to try and determine…
1Opinion of the Court
I
NIXON, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — This offense for which the defendant was prosecuted was ere-*197ated by statute, and the information followed the words of the statute and under the authorities is sufficient. [State v. Mitchell, 6 Mo. 147; State v. Rowlen, 114 Mo. 626; City of Louisiana v. Anderson, 100 Mo. App. 341, 73 S. W. 875; State y. Dooley, 121 Mo. 591, 26 S. W. 558; State v. Fare, 39 Mo. App. 110; State v. Sayman, 61 Mo. App. 244.]
II
Another objection raised by the appellant is that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to hear and try this cause for the reason that the special…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. DooleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State v. FareMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- State v. MitchellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1839
- State v. PopeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- State v. SaymanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Ava v. YostMissouri Court of Appeals · 1964