State v. Horner
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. ' I. The indictment was defective under the statute (Wagn. Stat. 468, § 9) in not charging anything touching the sale, exchange or” delivery of the check, or any consideration passing. " II. There was no uttering of the check in a legal sense. It was simply deposited for safe-keeping.' The' hotel clerk was a mere bailee. There was no transfer for a consideration.
Read the full summary
Jlppeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. ' I. The indictment was defective under the statute (Wagn. Stat. 468, § 9) in not charging anything touching the sale, exchange or” delivery of the check, or any consideration passing. " II. There was no uttering of the check in a legal sense. It was simply deposited for safe-keeping.' The' hotel clerk was a mere bailee. There was no transfer for a consideration. The prisoner received from the clerk a deposit check, which gave him control of the' paper. (See Rex v. Harris, 6' C. & P. 129;‘ Rex v. S'hukard, Russ. & Ryl. 200 ; see also Gentry v. The State,…
1Opinion of the Court
Washer, Judge,
delivered.the opinion of the court..
The indictment in this case contained two counts.- The first ■charged the defendant with forging and counterfeiting a certain check,'and'the second charged him with uttering, passing and publishing the same "as true. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty on the second count, and he was sentenced accordingly.
Several questions have been argued by the counsel for defendant, but "there are only tw’o that deserve any particular consideration.' The first is whether the act whereof the prisoner stands convicted constituted an “uttering” within the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. HartmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- State v. YergerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- State v. WashingtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1978
- Maloney v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- The People v. KatzIllinois Supreme Court · 1934
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.