State v. Campbell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Gentry Circuit Court. — Hon. O. A. Anthony, Judge. (1) As the act charged in the indictment does not fall within the express terms of the statute (E. S. 1889, sec. 7827), the indictment no doubt was intended to charge a common law offense, and it is by us so considered. State v. Turner, 21 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Gentry Circuit Court. — Hon. O. A. Anthony, Judge. (1) As the act charged in the indictment does not fall within the express terms of the statute (E. S. 1889, sec. 7827), the indictment no doubt was intended to charge a common law offense, and it is by us so considered. State v. Turner, 21 Mo. App. 324. There was absolutely no testimony offered in the case tending to establish the fact that filling brick, stone and dirt into the drain in controversy obstructed the road at this point. The whole effort of the state was directed to the establishment of an obstruction in the road…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The indictment in the case charged the defendant with unlawfully and knowingly obstructing a certain public road “by filling brick, stone and dirt into the drain along the sides of said road and upon the right of way of said *113road to the great hindrance, annoyance and inconvenience of the citizens of the state, against” etc.
Roads and highways: obstruction of: statute and common law: indictment. It will be seen by reference to the provisions of section 7827, Revised Statutes, that there was no offense charged under that section. But any unauthorized or unreasonable obstruction of a highway…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. TurnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
3Cited by4 opinions
- Newberry v. Hamblen CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1928
- Camden Special Road District of Ray County v. TaylorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1973
- Carson v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1940
- State v. AuffartMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915