State v. Hilsabeck
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. Stbatton, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling defendant’s application for a continuance. State v. Lee, 98 Mo. 609. An application for a continuance by defendant, on account of the absence of material witnesses, which is the first one made, and which meets with the requirements, should be granted. State v. Bradley, 90 Mo. 160. Defendant was entitled to have his witnesses, present.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. Stbatton, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling defendant’s application for a continuance. State v. Lee, 98 Mo. 609. An application for a continuance by defendant, on account of the absence of material witnesses, which is the first one made, and which meets with the requirements, should be granted. State v. Bradley, 90 Mo. 160. Defendant was entitled to have his witnesses, present. State v. Berkley, 92 Mo. 41; State v. Niederer, 94 Mo. 79; State v. Dyke, 96 Mo. 298. And he is entitled to reasonable time after change of venue. State v.…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
For an attempt made on the fifth day of July, 1894, to ravish Anonyma, a young girl not quite fifteen years of age, defendant was indicted in the county of Yernon, at the November term, 1894. In December following defendant requested and obtained a change of venue and one was awarded to Barton county, where a trial resulted in his conviction and sentence to the penitentiary for the term of five years, and he appeals to this court.
The record proper in this ease has been made out very well, but the bill of exceptions, that is to say, that *354portion which contains the evidence, has been…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. CantlinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. PagelsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State v. FairlambSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State v. HowardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. ReichSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- International Harvester Co. of America v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Crouch v. National Livestock Remedy Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- Littlefield v. Clayton Bros.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1917
- State v. MaupinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.