State v. Rector
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Criminal Court. The act creating the offence of enticing away a sláve, declares the same to be grand larceny, and the allegation at the conclusion of the second count, that “the defendant, in manner and form aforesaid, did feloniously steal, &c.,” does not change the character or grade of the larceny, but is to be regarded as mere surplusage, adding a conclusion of law, and giving a name to the offence.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Criminal Court. The act creating the offence of enticing away a sláve, declares the same to be grand larceny, and the allegation at the conclusion of the second count, that “the defendant, in manner and form aforesaid, did feloniously steal, &c.,” does not change the character or grade of the larceny, but is to be regarded as mere surplusage, adding a conclusion of law, and giving a name to the offence. Thus, the two offences charged in the two counts, do not differ, and may be joined. But it is insisted that several larcenies may be joined in the same indictment, though…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was an indictment under the 32nd section of the 3rd article of the act concerning crimes and punishments.' The indictment charged that the defendant, on, &e., at,_&c., “ a certain negro woman slave for life, named Mary, then and there belonging to one William S. S., feloniously and ^wilfully did entice, decoy, and carry away, out of the State aforesaid, with intent then and there to procure and effect the freedom of the said slave, contrary,” &c. .The second count charges the offence in nearly the same language as the first, but concludes thus: “And so, the jurors aforesaid do say, that…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. RosegrantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- State v. LichliterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- State v. LucasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898