City of Louisiana v. Anderson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas— Hon. David H. Hby, Judge. (1) Prosecutions of this character are civil actions and the rules of pleading and procedure in civil eases must he applied to them. City of Savannah v. ■Dickey, 33 Mo. App. 522; Stephens v. K. C., 146 Mo. 460; In re Miller, 44 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas— Hon. David H. Hby, Judge. (1) Prosecutions of this character are civil actions and the rules of pleading and procedure in civil eases must he applied to them. City of Savannah v. ■Dickey, 33 Mo. App. 522; Stephens v. K. C., 146 Mo. 460; In re Miller, 44 Mo. App. 125-148; St. Louis v. Vert, 84 Mo. 204; St. Louis v. Knox, 74 Mo. 79; St. Louis v. Hollowed., 74 Mo. 395; Kansas City v. Clark, 68 Mo. 588. (2) Defendant is only entitled to be informed of the ordinance he violates. St. Lonis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 600; DeSoto v. Brown, 44 Mo. App. 148..…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
Respondent George W. Anderson was complained against under an ordinance of the city of Louisiana for keeping his saloon open on Sunday, convicted and fined; but the court arrested the judgment because of the supposed insufficiency of the complaint, which was as follows:
“City of Louisiana, Plaintiff, v. George W. Anderson, Defendant. — In the Recorder’s Court.
“The city of Louisiana complains of George Anderson for the violation of section 21 of chapter 9 of the Revised Ordinances of said city, approved the first day of September, 1896, said chapter being entitled ‘Dram-shop, Beer, and Wine…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. WeitzelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- People v. WaldvogelMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- People v. CoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- City of St. Louis v. KnoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Kroer v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. MaloneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1946
- State v. AlsupMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909