City of St. Louis v. Roche
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St.' Louis Court of Criminal Correction. Hon. Jas. R. Claiborne, Judge. (1) The verdict is against the evidence, because there is no proof of the existence of the municipal ordinance alleged to have been violated. The existence of a law to be violated is the first essential fact in a prosecution. In the record presented, there is not the slightest suggestion of any proof of the ordinance alleged to have been violated.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St.' Louis Court of Criminal Correction. Hon. Jas. R. Claiborne, Judge. (1) The verdict is against the evidence, because there is no proof of the existence of the municipal ordinance alleged to have been violated. The existence of a law to be violated is the first essential fact in a prosecution. In the record presented, there is not the slightest suggestion of any proof of the ordinance alleged to have been violated. And courts will not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances. State ex rel. v. Sherman, 42 Mo. 210; Bowie v. Kansas City, 51 Mo. 454; Inhabitants v. Robinson, 75…
1Opinion of the Court
Burgess, J. —
Defendant was charged in the St. Louis court of criminal correction with violating the eighth clause of ordinance number 14000, chapter 25, article 6, section 1023, of said city, by knowingly, willingly and unlawfully associating with persons having the reputation of being thieves, burglars, pickpockets, pigeon droppers and gamblers, for the purpose, and with the design and intent, of conspiring and combining with such parties to aid, abet, assist and promote them in gambling, gaming and pigeon dropping at divers gambling houses, and at places for the reception-of stolen…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pinkerton v. VerbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Bowie v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Martin's v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
- City of St. Louis v. FitzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- State ex rel. Oddle v. ShermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Ex parte SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Consumer Contact Co. v. State Department of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1980
- City of St. Louis v. GlonerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- People v. PieriNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- City of Rolla v. RidenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1961
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.