State v. Mackin
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Bay Circidt Court. — Hon. James M. Sandusky, Judge. The indictment upon which the defendant was found guilty charges no offense against the laws in the state of Missouri. It was evidently intended to be founded on section 715, page 252, of the Revised Statutes of 1889, the only penalty prescribed by said section being a forfeiture of $50, to be recovered by civil action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Bay Circidt Court. — Hon. James M. Sandusky, Judge. The indictment upon which the defendant was found guilty charges no offense against the laws in the state of Missouri. It was evidently intended to be founded on section 715, page 252, of the Revised Statutes of 1889, the only penalty prescribed by said section being a forfeiture of $50, to be recovered by civil action. This section is similar to section 5454, page 1071, Wagner’s Statutes, with reference to dramshop keepers. The court, under that section, has held that it was not an indictable offense. State v. Amos, 77 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
In January, 1891, defendant, as proprietor, kept a licensed billiard or pool room inEichmond, Missouri. He was indicted in the Eay county circuit court for suffering certain boys — minors under twenty-one years of age — to play pool on his tables without the permission of the fathers, masters or guardians of such minors, as prohibited by section 715, Eevised Statutes, 1889. The cause was submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts, the substance of which was that defendant was a duly licensed keeper of a pool room, and that on January 25,1891, the minors named entered his room, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. BruderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- State v. AmorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883