State v. Buster
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. — Hon. H. S. Kelley, Judge. The demurrer should have been sustained to the indictment. There is no allegation in the indictment that the prosecutrix was defiled by the defendant while she was, or remained in his care, custody or employment. The statute of 1879, the statute in force at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, amends the statute of 1865 by adding the words, “while she remains in his care, custody or employment.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. — Hon. H. S. Kelley, Judge. The demurrer should have been sustained to the indictment. There is no allegation in the indictment that the prosecutrix was defiled by the defendant while she was, or remained in his care, custody or employment. The statute of 1879, the statute in force at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, amends the statute of 1865 by adding the words, “while she remains in his care, custody or employment.” SeeR. S., 1865, p. 816, sec. 9 ; R. S., 1879, vol. 1, p. 222, sec. 1260. The indictment was drawn from the form given in…
1Opinion of the Court
Sherwood, J.—
The defendant was indicted under the provisions of section 1260, Revised Statutes, 1879, which is as follows: “If any guardian of any female under the age of eighteen years, or any other person to whose care or protection any such female shall have been confided, shall defile her, by carnally knowing her [while she remains in his care, custody or employment,] he-shall, in cases not otherwise provided for, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five-years, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, and a fine not less than one hundred…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. HaywardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. ArnewineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- State v. TerrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1891