State v. Young
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Wayne Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Green, Judge. The indictment is drawn with the evident intention of charging a violation of section 21 of the dram-shop law of 1891, and is fatally defective in failing to charge the alleged offense in the language of the statute. Sess. Acts 1891, p. 131. The defect in the indictment being fatal, a motion to quash, or in arrest, is not necessary, as this eo urt will notice the defect on appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Wayne Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Green, Judge. The indictment is drawn with the evident intention of charging a violation of section 21 of the dram-shop law of 1891, and is fatally defective in failing to charge the alleged offense in the language of the statute. Sess. Acts 1891, p. 131. The defect in the indictment being fatal, a motion to quash, or in arrest, is not necessary, as this eo urt will notice the defect on appeal. State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 112; State v. Fleming, 117 Id. 377.
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
Tbe indictment is as follows:
“State oe Missouri, 1 ?• “County oe Wayne. J
ss. Indictment.
In the circuit court, August term, 1895.
“The grand jurors for the state of Missouri, impaneled, sworn and charged to inquire within and for the body of the county of Wayne and state of Missouri, aforesaid, upon their oath present and charge that J. H. Young and James D. Young, at said county and state, on the second day of June, 1895, said day being the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, they the said J. H. Young and James D. Young, being then and there dramshop keepers, then and there did…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. GreenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- State v. HecklerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. BraunSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. KurtzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- State v. RoehmSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. EssmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905