Lohart v. Buchanan
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppcal from St. Louis Circuit Court.' This was a suit for damages under the statute (Wagn. Stat. 519-521) against defendant for killing plaintiff’s husband. It appears from the testimony that the latter, together with defendant and one Hanrahan — between whom and defendant there had been a difficulty of some sort — were at a country bar-room in St. Louis county, and became engaged in a quarrel, during which defendant fatally stabbed the husband of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Jlppcal from St. Louis Circuit Court.' This was a suit for damages under the statute (Wagn. Stat. 519-521) against defendant for killing plaintiff’s husband. It appears from the testimony that the latter, together with defendant and one Hanrahan — between whom and defendant there had been a difficulty of some sort — were at a country bar-room in St. Louis county, and became engaged in a quarrel, during which defendant fatally stabbed the husband of plaintiff. Further facts pertinent to the decision may be gathered from the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This case was argued elaborately by counsel in reference to the action of the court in its rulings upon the admissibility of *202evidence, and also in regard to the giving and refusing of instructions. But upon examining the record we find that there are but two or three questions preserved for review here. The court gave instructions at the request of the plaintiff and defendant, and .refused other instructions asked by both; but neither party made any exceptions whatever, and the appellant presents himself here in no situation to complain. So, in nearly every instance where an objection was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. StarrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Spaunhorst v. LinkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. HopeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Baker's Adm'r v. CrandallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Taussig v. SchieldsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Carder v. PrimmMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895