State v. Howell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Christian Circuit Court. — Hon. George F. Long-an, Special Judge. (1) The indictment does not charge defendant with using any device named in section 3810, Revised Statutes 1889 (the section under which the indictment is drawn). (2) The court should be able by an inspection of the indictment to determine whether a crime is charged.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Christian Circuit Court. — Hon. George F. Long-an, Special Judge. (1) The indictment does not charge defendant with using any device named in section 3810, Revised Statutes 1889 (the section under which the indictment is drawn). (2) The court should be able by an inspection of the indictment to determine whether a crime is charged. If the device is named in the section and denounced by it, it is as a matter of law a gambling device — but if it requires proof to determine whether or not it is a gambling^ device, it should be described in the indictment. State v. Ragsdale, 59 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
Defendant appeals from a conviction and judgment,on the following indictment:
“State of Missouri,
County of Christian.
In the Circuit Court of Christian
County February Term, 1899.
“The grand jurors of the state of Missouri, impaneled and sworn to inquire for the body of the county of Christian, upon their oath present that E. M. Howell, late of the county and state aforesaid, on the first day of June, A. D. 1898, and from that until Jan. 1, 1899, at the county of Christian and state of Missouri did then and there unlawfully and knowingly permit a certain slot-machine and gambling device, to wit,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. WadeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
- State Ex Rel. Igoe v. JoyntSupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- Soper v. MichalCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1914
- State v. TurlingtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1918
- In re Potter for Writ of Habeas CorpusCalifornia Superior Court · 1924