State v. Newkirk
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. The statute has no application to a case like this, showing no malice. From the defendant’s acts the law presumes malice.
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
This complaint was prosecuted in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, and was founded upon the act of 1869 (Sess. Acts 1869, p. 71; Wagn. Stat. 462, § 56), providing for the punishment of certain malicious trespasses.
The complaint charges that the defendant willfully, maliciously and unlawfully broke and severed from a building owned by the complainant a lock, plank partition and certain platform scales, all alleged to be then and there the property of the complainant and to form a part of the freehold.
*85At the trial there was no dispute as to the fact of the severance ymd removal of the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. BoydSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Missouri v. RagsdaleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- State v. FlynnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- State v. KiteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Weeks-Betts Hardware Co. v. Roosevelt Lead & Zinc Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.