State v. Hesterly
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — How. Argus Cox, Judge. (1) The action of the court in overruling appellant’s application for a continuance was prejudicial to appellant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — How. Argus Cox, Judge. (1) The action of the court in overruling appellant’s application for a continuance was prejudicial to appellant. Due diligence had been shown to procure the attendance of the absent witnesses, Clinton, Johnson and Nellie Lesh, and all the statutory requirements were met by the affidavit in support of the application and the evidence sought to be obtained was competent and appellant should have been allowed an opportunity to obtain it. State v. Warden, 94 Mo. 648; State v. Anderson, 96 Mo. 250; State v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 667; State v.…
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
On the fifteenth of January, 1903, the prosecuting attorney of Howell county filed an amended information in this cause. The trial was had upon the second count of the information, which was as follows:
“And M. E. Morrow, prosecuting attorney as aforesaid, further informs the court that on the--day of December, A. D. 1902, at said Howell county, said William Hesterly, being then and there a public *19school teacher in said county, and as such teacher being then and there a person to whose care and protection one Anna Byers, as a student, was then and there confided, did then and there willfully,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. DettmerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State v. BanksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Hutchinson v. ShelleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- State v. Jackson.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1939
- State v. KauffmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- State v. OakesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Gibler v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.