State v. McCourtney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to the circuit court of Franklin county. 1. Is not this indictment good in form and substance? ■ 2. Did not the circuit court err in sustaining the motion of the defendant and in quashing the indictment? 3. The court erred in overruling the motion made on behalf of the State to permit a prosecutor to be endorsed upon said indictment, (before the defendants motion was decided,) if a prosecutor in such case should be considered necessary under the statute.
Read the full summary
Error to the circuit court of Franklin county. 1. Is not this indictment good in form and substance? ■ 2. Did not the circuit court err in sustaining the motion of the defendant and in quashing the indictment? 3. The court erred in overruling the motion made on behalf of the State to permit a prosecutor to be endorsed upon said indictment, (before the defendants motion was decided,) if a prosecutor in such case should be considered necessary under the statute. Digest 202, sec. 6-7-8; 4 Blk. Com. 146; Digest 481, sec. 22, 23; 3 vol. Mo. Rep. 125, (State vs. Wilson.) 3 Ba,c. Ab’r. R. 574.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Napton Judge.
Julius Emmons, Sanford Whitworth, James McCourtney, and seven others, were indicted by the grand jury of Jefferson county at the June term 1839. The indictment contained three counts. The first count charged that defendants, with others, on &c., at &c., “unlawfully, riotously, and routously did assemble and gather together, with intent to disturb the peace of the people there being, and being so assembled with the intent aforesaid, upon the body of one James Pepper, in the place then'and there being, unlawfully, riotously and routously did make an ssault,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. District Court of First Judicial Dist.Montana Supreme Court · 1950
- State v. MolesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1846
- State v. District Court of First Judicial Dist.Montana Supreme Court · 1950