Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hensick v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 20, 1878PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Application for mandamus. In capital cases, the jury should not separate after being empanelled. — McLean v. The State, 8 Mo. 154; The State v. Brown, 33 Mo. 483. And the city of St. Louis is liable for the expense of boarding a jury while so kept together, as for other necessary expenses of the St. Louis Criminal Court. — The State v. Maus, 41 Mo. 470. The city is not liable for food furnished jurors serving in the Criminal Court. — Acts 1874, p. 238 ; The State v. Olark,…

Read the full summary

Application for mandamus. In capital cases, the jury should not separate after being empanelled. — McLean v. The State, 8 Mo. 154; The State v. Brown, 33 Mo. 483. And the city of St. Louis is liable for the expense of boarding a jury while so kept together, as for other necessary expenses of the St. Louis Criminal Court. — The State v. Maus, 41 Mo. 470. The city is not liable for food furnished jurors serving in the Criminal Court. — Acts 1874, p. 238 ; The State v. Olark, 57 Mo. 25. The pretended contract between the relator and the city is invalid. — Acts 1874, p. 44; City Charter, secs. 7,…

1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.

The application of the relator in this case shows a refusal on the part of the city auditor to draw a warrant upon the city treasurer of the city of St. Louis for an account duly certified for payment by the judge of the St. Louis Criminal Court. The case is to be considered upon a motion to quash the alternative writ heretofore issued by this court. The facts stated in the application are to be taken as true.

It appears that on Nov. 20, 1877, the judge of the St. Louis Criminal Court directed the marshal of that court to receive bids for furnishing meals to jurors in the cases in which the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Houston v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  2. Commissioners v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
  3. State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
  4. State ex rel. Winship v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
  5. McLean v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1843

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Hovey v. NobleIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  2. State Ex Rel. Gentry v. BeckerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
  3. Kirby v. NolteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
  4. State ex rel. Howard v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API