State v. Cameron
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal .from Montgomery Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) The motions to quash and in arrest should have been sustained.
Read the full summary
Appeal .from Montgomery Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) The motions to quash and in arrest should have been sustained. It is difficult to determine whether it was intended to charge defendant under section 3654 or 3780 or 3826 of the Revised Statutes of 1889. This case falls within State v. Terry, 109 Mo. 601; see, also, State v. Porter, 75 Mo. 171. (2) The judgment should be reversed because of the many errors of the trial court in admitting and excluding evidence. (3) The demurrer to the evidence ought to have been sustained as to defendant, as well as to Meeks, because the…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
The count in the indictment on which defendant was convicted is as follows:
“The grand jurors for the state of Missouri, duly impaneled, charged and sworn to inquire within and for the body of the county of Lincoln, and state of Missouri, upon their oath do charge and present that, on or about the twenty-fourth day of April, A. D. 1891, at the county of Lincoln, and state of Missouri, A. Q. Cameron, C. A. Meeks and E. J. Web, being then and there in an unlawful conspiracy, combination, confederation and agreement among themselves, with the intent to cheat and defraud Hansford Bichards of his…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. GradyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
- Fay v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1877
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. KeyesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. HubbardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Ex parte ThaggardAlabama Court of Appeals · 1963
- Martin v. HillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- State v. CraneSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.