State v. Martin
Supreme Court of Missouri
The defendant contends that the indictment is defective in this, that — 1. It does not allege that defendant did deal in the selling of goods, wares or merchandise. 2. The indictment does not charge the sale to have been made at any store, stand, or place occupied for that pur* pose. - Each of these circumstances constitute part .of the statutory definition, and both are necessary.
Read the full summary
The defendant contends that the indictment is defective in this, that — 1. It does not allege that defendant did deal in the selling of goods, wares or merchandise. 2. The indictment does not charge the sale to have been made at any store, stand, or place occupied for that pur* pose. - Each of these circumstances constitute part .of the statutory definition, and both are necessary. In order to constitute a person, under this, statute, a merchant, he must not only sell goods, wares or merchandise, but he must follow it as a business — which, I understand, to be the sense in which the…
1Opinion of the Court
Edwards, Judge,
delivered the opinion .of the court.
This was an indictment against Martin in the circuit court of New Madrid eounty. On motion of the defendant, the indictment was quashed, and the State appealed,
The indictment charges, that on the day and year, and at the place therein mentioned, “with force and arms, at the county of New Madrid aforesaid, in the State of Missouri aforesaid, unlawfully, for and in consideration of the sum (to wit:) of one dollar, then and there had and received of one Ebenezer Oldham, he, the sai dEnoeh Martin, then and there did sell, retail and deliver unto…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State v. CoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
- Food Center of St. Louis, Inc. v. Village of Warson WoodsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- City of Troy v. HarrisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- United States v. WhiteDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1916