State ex rel. Dickmann v. Clark
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) At tlie time of- the passage of the statute in question in 1839, the circuit court alone had jurisdiction to try all felonies, and all misdemeanors (except breach of the peace). Laws 1835, pp.'135, 372. (2)' And it was therefore made imperative by the statute that in every case, both of felonies and misdemeanors, the officer should, upon the arrest of any person, take him befo're a magistrate for examination as soon as possible, where he might he discharged,…
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) At tlie time of- the passage of the statute in question in 1839, the circuit court alone had jurisdiction to try all felonies, and all misdemeanors (except breach of the peace). Laws 1835, pp.'135, 372. (2)' And it was therefore made imperative by the statute that in every case, both of felonies and misdemeanors, the officer should, upon the arrest of any person, take him befo're a magistrate for examination as soon as possible, where he might he discharged, recognized or committed. R. S. 1835, art. 2, p. 476, secs. 12 et seq. (3) The Act of 1839, was passed for the purpose of…
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, J.
This is an original proceeding by mandamus, to compel the respondents who are, respectively, the judge and prosecuting attorney of the court of criminal correction of the city of St. Louis, to audit and certify to the city auditor, a fee bill for two dollars and fifty cents, in favor of the relator, who is *71the sheriff of the said city, for the safe-keeping by him, for two days, of one Ted G-ognon, while “undergoing an examination preparatory to his commitment” by the said court of criminal correction, upon a charge of petit larceny. The return- admits all the facts stated in the alternative…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Stewart v. WoffordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Thomas v. County of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Million v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905