State v. Shiflett
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Linn Circuit Court. 1. When a statute contains provisoes and exceptions in distinct clauses, it is not necessary to state in the indictment that the defendant does not come within the exceptions, or to negative the provi-soes. (1 ■Chitty’s Crim. Law, 283. 2 Hale, 171. Hawk. C. 2, c. 25, s. 112. State v. Mams, 6 N. Iiamp. 533-4.) 2. The indictment is not double. (Storrs v. State, 3 Mo. Rep. 7.) 3. The venue is sufficiently laid. (1 Chitty’s Crim.
Read the full summary
Error to Linn Circuit Court. 1. When a statute contains provisoes and exceptions in distinct clauses, it is not necessary to state in the indictment that the defendant does not come within the exceptions, or to negative the provi-soes. (1 ■Chitty’s Crim. Law, 283. 2 Hale, 171. Hawk. C. 2, c. 25, s. 112. State v. Mams, 6 N. Iiamp. 533-4.) 2. The indictment is not double. (Storrs v. State, 3 Mo. Rep. 7.) 3. The venue is sufficiently laid. (1 Chitty’s Crim. Law, 198. State v. Edwards, 19 Mo. Rep. 677.)
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
The defendant, James Dudley Shiflett, was indicted at the April term of the Circuit Court for the county of Linn, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-three, for wilfully and unlawfully opening one sealed letter not addressed to himself, and *416without authority from the writer thereof, or from the person to whom it was addressed.
The defendant appeared to the indictment at the October term of the court, and made his motion to quash the same, for the following reasons : “ That said indictment does not negative the fact that said offence is punishable by the laws of the United States ; that said…
2Cited by16 opinions
- State v. BockstruckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- State v. ZammarSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- State v. AchterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974
- State v. MeekSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- State v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.