State v. Dowd
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Phelps Circuit Court. — Hon. C. C. Bland, Judge. An accessory before the fact is, under our statute, a principal. R. S., 1879, sec. 1649. One may be charged in one county of an indictment as a principal and in another as present, aiding and abetting.
Read the full summary
Error to Phelps Circuit Court. — Hon. C. C. Bland, Judge. An accessory before the fact is, under our statute, a principal. R. S., 1879, sec. 1649. One may be charged in one county of an indictment as a principal and in another as present, aiding and abetting. State v. Anderson,, 89 Mo. 312 ; State v. Miller, 67 Mo. 604. The language of the statute is: “Every person, who, with intent to cheat and defraud, shall obtain, or attempt to obtain, from any person or persons, any money, property, or valuable thing whatever,” etc. R. S., sec. 1561. A general warranty deed properly signed, sealed,…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
The indictment in this cause is as follows :
"State of Missouri j In the Circuit Court. [• ss. “ County of Phelps ) February Term, 1888.
“ The grand jurors for the state of Missouri summoned from the body of Phelps county, empaneled, charged, and sworn upon their oaths, present that F. E. Dowd, John St. Elmer, Arthur Corse, late of the county aforesaid, on the nineteenth day of July, 1887, at the county of Phelps and state aforesaid, did feloniously and designedly, with intent to cheat and defraud Minnie Lupberger and her husband, Wilhelm Lupberger, obtain a general warranty deed of and from…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. ClaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Woodson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902