Freleigh v. State
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Criminal Court. First: The venue ought to have been changed. The petition and affidavits are, I believe, in exact conformity to law. The only ground of refusal taken by the Criminal Court was, that it did not appear that the auxiliary affiants were respectable.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Criminal Court. First: The venue ought to have been changed. The petition and affidavits are, I believe, in exact conformity to law. The only ground of refusal taken by the Criminal Court was, that it did not appear that the auxiliary affiants were respectable. I contend, that, as nothing appears against them, they must be presumed respectable: in the sense of the law, respectable means credible; and all competent witnesses are credible until successfully impeached. Second: The cases ought to have been continued on the affidavits filed. They are ample — covering the…
1Opinion of the Court
Napxokt, J.,
delivered the opinipn of the Court.
The plaintiff in error was indicted at the May term, 1843, of the Saint Louis-Criminal Court, for vending a lottery ticket in the New Franklin Railroad Lottery. The indictment contained three counts: the first count charged, that the-defendant “did unlawfully sell to one Charles D. Gillespie a certain lottery ticket, in a certain lottery not authorized by the laws of this State, called the-*609Franklin Railroad Lottery, (which said lottery ticket was then and there taken and kept by the said Gillespie, so that the jurors aforesaid cannot set forth…
2Cited by36 opinions
- Constitutional Prohibitory AmendmentSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Shea v. City of MuncieIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Ortiz v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1892
- Burroughs v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1880
- Stone v. FrittsIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.