Legal Opinion

City of Cassville v. Jimerson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 10, 1898PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Barry Circuit Court. — Hon. John C. Lamson, Judge. This being a proceeding for the violation of a city ordinance, there is no law of the state and no ordinance of the city requiring the prosecuting witness to have actual knowledge of the offense, hence section 4329, Revised Statutes 1889, is not applicable to this case. State v. Feagan, 70 Mo. App. 406, et seq. Section 45, at page 73, of the charter of the city of Cassville, session acts of 1895, is a complete protection against instituting causes for revenge or through malice. The city courts of the fourth class have no means…

1Opinion of the Court

Biggs, J. —

The defendant was charged up on the complaint of one M. R. Rayless with the violation of an ordinance of the plaintiff, a city of the f ourth class. He was convicted before the mayor of the city, and on appeal in the circuit court the proceeding was dismissed on motion of defendant upon the alleged ground that the prosecuting witness had no personal knowledge of the commission of the alleged offense. ,. On the hearing of the motion the prosecuting witness testified that he had no personal knowledge of the facts; that he was not present when the offense was committed, and that his…

2Cases cited2 opinions

City of St. Louis v. KnoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
Golden City v. HallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897

3Cited by4 opinions

City of King City v. DuncanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
City of Ava v. YostMissouri Court of Appeals · 1964
City of Mexico v. HarrisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
City of Monett v. BeatyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899