Legal Opinion

State v. Allen

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1855PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. The defendant, Allen, a justice of the peace, was indicted for misdemeanor in office, in maliciously and without just cause issuing a warrant for-the arrest of one Myers. No one’s name was endorsed on the indictment as prosecutor. It is not necessary to set forth the instructions given by the court. The question of malice was put to the jury very fairly and favorably to defendant.

1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge

We see no error in this record. There was no necessity for a prosecutor. This was an indictment for a misdemeanor in office. The 22d section of the 3d article of the act concerning “Practice and Proceedings in Criminal Cases,” prescribes that no indictment for any trespass against the person or property of another, not amounting to felony, or for the first offence of petit larceny, shall be preferred, unless the name of a prosecutor is endorsed thereon, as such. If the offence of which the defendant is accused is a trespass, it will be difficult to specify one in the code which may not be…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. HuiattMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API