State v. Clark
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jippeal from, Dent Circuit Court. Gardenhire, (attorney general,) for the State. 1. A defendant cannot be discharged for any failure of the clerk in making entries, after the filing of an indictment. 2. The Circuit Court had power to order entries of proceedings had at a previous term to be made nunc pro tunc. Hyde v. Curlings et at., 10 Mo. Rep. 859.
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
The defendant was indicted for gaming by the grand jury, at the September term of the Circuit Court for Dent county, in the *433year 1852. At the April term of said court, in the year 1853, the defendant appeared in court, and moved the court to discharge him from his recognizance in this case, for the following reasons : “ 1st, because there is no indictment in this cause filed in the clerk’s office in this court by indorsement of the clerk on said indictment; 2d, because there is no indictment in this cause, and because the proceedings are otherwise irregular and defective.”
Upon the hearing of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hyde v. Curling & RobertsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- State v. MertensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
3Cited by31 opinions
- In the Matter of Charles LamarreCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- State v. GrateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Ex parte BuskirkCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1896
- Bowling v. MerrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.