Legal Opinion
State v. Haley
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided January 17, 1893PublishedCited by 7 opinions
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas H. Bacon, Judge. The motion should not have been sustained because the information charges the offense in the language of the statute. Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. • 3896; State v. Bum,, 81 Mo. 108. The law does not require an information to be verified as has been settled since this ■cause was passed upon. State v. Bamberger, 106 Mo. 135.
1Opinion of the CourtRombaueb, P. J.
The state appeals from the judgment of the circuit court quashing an information in the following words:
“State op Missouei, 1 ^ss. * ‘County of Monroe. J
“The State of Missouri v. William Haley.
“Before R. E. L. Sevier, a justice of the peace, within and for Monroe township, Monroe county, Missouri.
“William T. Ragland, assistant prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Monroe in the state ■of Missouri, informs the justice that one William Haley, on or about the thirtieth day of March, A. D. 1891, at the said county of Monroe, did then and there unlawfully torture two domestic animals,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. RansbergerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. FareMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- State v. BuckMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- State v. HynesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- State v. HackfathMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gray v. WardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1916
- State v. TaylorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- State v. WeeksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- State v. SpinkSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1896
- State v. StockerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.