State v. Shortell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. —Hon. Calvin M. Miller, Judge. Cause certified to Supreme Court. (1) The information is a mere copy of a statute which does not individuate the offense, and is insufficient under the following authorities: State v. Miner, 233 Mo. 312; State v. Burke, 151 Mo. 142; United States v. Cruickshank, 92 U. S. 542; State v. Meysenhurg, 171 Mo. 25; State v. Krueger, 134 Mo. .262; State v. Watson, 206 Mo. 420; State v. Stowe, 132 Mo.…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. —Hon. Calvin M. Miller, Judge. Cause certified to Supreme Court. (1) The information is a mere copy of a statute which does not individuate the offense, and is insufficient under the following authorities: State v. Miner, 233 Mo. 312; State v. Burke, 151 Mo. 142; United States v. Cruickshank, 92 U. S. 542; State v. Meysenhurg, 171 Mo. 25; State v. Krueger, 134 Mo. .262; State v. Watson, 206 Mo. 420; State v. Stowe, 132 Mo. 190; State v. Fraker, 148 Mo. 143; State v. Barbee, 136 Mo. 440; State v. Pickett, 174 Mo. 668; State v. Cameron, 216…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION.
REYNOLDS, P. J.
I find myself unable to agree to the conclusions arrived at by my esteemed Brother Allen as to the sufficiency of the information in this case. I have expressed my view of a similar information in the case of State v. Maurer, post, p. 175, to which I refer, and think all the points of objection which are raised by my Brother Allen to the present information are disposed of contrary to his contention by the ruling of our Supreme Court in State v. Bockstruck, 136 Mo. 335, 38 S. W. 317, in which an information under this same oleomargarine law, although a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. BockstruckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- State v. WilkersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- State v. EdgenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- State v. HiltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- State v. CummingsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913