Legal Opinion
State v. Langley
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided March 12, 1913PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. — ■ Eon. William I. Ragland, Judge. Tbe information charges tbe offense in tbe language of tbe statute. R. S. 1909, sec. 4492. When the act defines tbe offense, it is sufficient to charge tbe offense in tbe language of tbe act. State v. Davis, 70 Mo. 464; State v. Adcock, 65 Mo. 590; State v. Block, 82 S. W. 1103.
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIAMS, C.
At the January term, 1912, of tbe Hannibal Court of Common Pleas, tbe defendant was convicted for violation of tbe provisions of section 4492, Revised Statutes 1909, which said section is as follows:
“If any mother of any infant child, under tbe age of sixteen years, or any father of any such, .infant *547child, horn in or legitimatized by lawful wedlock, or any person who has adopted any such infant child, or any master or mistress of an apprentice, under such age, or other person having the legal care and control of any such infant shall, without lawful excuse, refuse or neglect to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. HardeleinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- State v. DoyleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- State v. HirschSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- State v. GarrettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- State v. AndersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- State v. BeimsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923