State v. Brown
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Loui3 Criminal Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. The indictments charge the offences in the words of the statute, and are therefore good. — The Stale vs. Comfort, 5 Mo. Rep., 357; The State vs. Martin, Ibid., 361; The State vs. Mitchell, 6 Mo.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Loui3 Criminal Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. The indictments charge the offences in the words of the statute, and are therefore good. — The Stale vs. Comfort, 5 Mo. Rep., 357; The State vs. Martin, Ibid., 361; The State vs. Mitchell, 6 Mo. Rep., 147, wherein it is Said, “It has often been decided, that if the offence in the indictment charged be described im the words of the statute, it is sufficient,” 2. In indictments founded on statutory offences, it is a general rule that all the circumstances which constitute the definition of the offence must be stated, but it is not…
1Opinion of the CourtNaptox, J.
These three cases are alike in every particular. The defendants were indicted under the act of February 16,1841, entitled, “An act to regulate groceries and dram-shops.” The indictment charged that defendant, on, &c., at, &c., “unlawfully did sell spirituous liquors at his stand in the county of St. Louis, in less quantity than one quart, to be drank at the place of sale, without then and there having a dram-shop license continuing in force, contrary,” &c. The defendants were severally convicted and fined twenty dollars each, but, upon motion, judgment was arrested.
If the act of March 18,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. Keck v. SeibertSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- State v. McAdooSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- State v. RenkardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- State v. WishonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- State v. McBrideSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877