State v. Woerner
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. The St. Louis Criminal Court possesses no jurisdiction or authority to entertain any proceedings or to determine any question in relation to the rights of parties to a forfeited recoguizauce: 1. The St. Louis Criminal Court has such “ original and appellate jurisdiction” as is “vested in the several Circuity, Courts of this State in criminal cases,” and in none other.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. The St. Louis Criminal Court possesses no jurisdiction or authority to entertain any proceedings or to determine any question in relation to the rights of parties to a forfeited recoguizauce: 1. The St. Louis Criminal Court has such “ original and appellate jurisdiction” as is “vested in the several Circuity, Courts of this State in criminal cases,” and in none other. (R. C. 1855, p. 1589, § 1.) 2. The proceedings for the enforcement of the undertaking of the appellant are, in their nature and character, civil, as distinguished from criminal. (See 3…
1Opinion of the Court
Bates, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court..
On the 13th of August, 1859, Henry Schaeffer and the defendant Woerner, before a judge, of the St. Louis County Court, entered into a recognizance, conditioned for Schaeffer’s appearance before the St. Louis Criminal Court on the fii'st day of the next term and from day to day during the term, and on the first day of any future term to which the cause might be continued, to answer an indictment preferred against Schaeffer for grand larceny, and that he should not depart the court without leave thereof.
There was then no indictment against…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. PeytonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- State v. LackerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915