Hamuel v. State
Supreme Court of Missouri
1. The first count, in the indictment is bad and insufficient, and does not show the nature of the agency or employment of the defendantby Ai thur, Stearns, & Co. 2. That the verdict is not responsive to the issue, and does not find the prisoner either guilty or not guilty ore the charge contained in the indictment; and does not warrant the sentence pronounced* by the court.
Read the full summary
1. The first count, in the indictment is bad and insufficient, and does not show the nature of the agency or employment of the defendantby Ai thur, Stearns, & Co. 2. That the verdict is not responsive to the issue, and does not find the prisoner either guilty or not guilty ore the charge contained in the indictment; and does not warrant the sentence pronounced* by the court. S. That the conviction is illegal, because the court •erred as stated in the bill of exceptions, and by refusing to charge and instruct the jury as requested. Authorities referred to are, Archbold's C. P. 119; 1 Chitty's…
1Opinion of the CourtMcGirk, Judge
At the May term of the circuit court for the county of ,St. Louis, Hamuel was indicted by the .grand jury of said county for embezzling certain goods.
The first count charges that on the 20th of May, 1.838,, in the county of St. Louis, the said Hamuel, being then and there .employed .as agent to John Arthur, Joseph *262Stearns,and James Arthur, did, by virtue of his saidem-ployment as such agent, then and there, and while he was so employed as aforesaid, receive and take into his possession certain goods and chattels, to wit, one engine, fifty brass boxes, and fifty pounds of brass of great value,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. StoneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. HarmonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. MasonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Page v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1839
- State v. DempseyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.