State v. Jablousky
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.— Hon. V. H. Falkenhainer, Judge. The statute was not intended to be invoked to settle disputed questions of boundary between coterminus landowners, and it is scarcely necessary to say that it was not intended to punish a man for making an honest mistake in regard to his own legal rights. State v. 2£nn, 26 Mo. App. 18. Even if the defendant were acting upon a mistaken view of his rights he could not he guilty.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.— Hon. V. H. Falkenhainer, Judge. The statute was not intended to be invoked to settle disputed questions of boundary between coterminus landowners, and it is scarcely necessary to say that it was not intended to punish a man for making an honest mistake in regard to his own legal rights. State v. 2£nn, 26 Mo. App. 18. Even if the defendant were acting upon a mistaken view of his rights he could not he guilty. State v. Newkirk, 49 Mo. 84; State v. Underwood, 37 Mo. 225; State v. Howell, 34 Mo. App. 86.
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
The information in this case purports to be based upon section 4598, R. S. 1909: It charges that defendant and one Walz did, willfully, unlawfully and maliciously and on a day named, “sever from the fence, inclosing and separating the realty and property of Bernhard Wussler from adjacent property, material of which said fence was formed and did willfully, unlawfully and maliciously pull down, injure and destroy a fence and part thereof inclosing as aforesaid the land of Bernhard Wussler and separating the same from adjacent property, said fence and the property on which it was erected being…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. NitchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. BurkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915