Legal Opinion

Ex parte Renfrow

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided December 12, 1892PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Habeas Corpus. (1) The courts will take judicial notice of the official records of the census, so far as they relate to the :state, — counties and cities in the state. , State ex rel. v. Herman,75 Mo. 340, 352; State ex rel. v. County Court, 89 Mo. 237. (2) The constitutional provision requiring •a county to have over fifty thousand inhabitants to authorize the establishment of a criminal court is mandatory.

Read the full summary

Habeas Corpus. (1) The courts will take judicial notice of the official records of the census, so far as they relate to the :state, — counties and cities in the state. , State ex rel. v. Herman,75 Mo. 340, 352; State ex rel. v. County Court, 89 Mo. 237. (2) The constitutional provision requiring •a county to have over fifty thousand inhabitants to authorize the establishment of a criminal court is mandatory. “If authority is given expressly, though by affirmative words, upon a defined condition, the expression of that’ condition excludes the doing of the act authorized under other…

1Opinion of the CourtBrace, J.

By an act of the general assembly “approved April 26, 1889,” a criminal court was established within and for the county of Greene. On *594the twenty-sixth day of August, 1891, the petitioner was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree, and afterwards on the second of September, 1891, was duly sentenced in said court to be hung, and committed to the custody of the respondent sheriff of said county for execution of the sentence. He now comes to this court by writ of habeas corpus, and asks to be discharged from such custody, on the ground that said court had no legal existence, the act…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex parte SnyderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  2. State v. RichSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
  3. State v. LeonardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
  4. State v. WileySupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
  5. State v. YorkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. McCaffery v. AloeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
  2. Laret Investment Co. v. DickmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
  3. State ex rel. Donham v. YancySupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  4. State Ex Rel. Aquamsi Land Co. v. HostetterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  5. State ex rel. Judah v. FortSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API