Legal Opinion

City of Mexico v. Harris

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 30, 1906PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. H. W. Johnson_, Judge. The complaint was insufficient and should have been quashed. It fails to inform defendant of the accusation against him and is not sufficient to bar another action. ' St. Louis v. Babcock, 156 Mo. 148; St. Joe v. Harris, 59 Mo. App. 122; Memphis v. O’Connor, 53 Mo. 468; Salisbury v. Patterson, 24 Mo. App. 169; Lamar v. Hewett, 60 Mo. App. 314; St. Louis v. Dorr, 136 Mo. 370; Tarkio v. Loyd, 109 Mo.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.

— On a trial before the police judge of the city of Mexico, Missouri, the defendant was convicted of a violation of the following ordinance of said city:

“Sec. 109. Setting up gambling devices.- — -Any person who shall, in this city, set up or keep any gaming table, gambling device, the setting up and keeping of which is not by the law of this State declared to be a felony, at which any game of chance shall be played for money, property or anything representing money or property or-shall suffer, or permit any such table or device, at which any game of chance is played, to be set up or used for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

City of St. Louis v. WeitzelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
City of Gallatin v. TarwaterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
State v. WisterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
City of Cassville v. JimersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
Town of Canton v. LigonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

Haycraft v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
City of Carthage v. BirdMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
City of Caruthersville v. PalsgroveMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
City of Poplar Bluff v. MeadowsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
Heim v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1918