State v. Waghalter
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — -Hon. W. B. Douglas, Judge. (1) It was error to admit proof of statements made by Joseph Mack. The court and the. prosecuting attorney were clearly mistaken in holding that the law permits a statement of the thief, made in the absence of defendant and not under circumstances binding on him, to be introduced against the receiver for the purpose of proving that the property was stolen. Such evidence is clearly hearsay.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — -Hon. W. B. Douglas, Judge. (1) It was error to admit proof of statements made by Joseph Mack. The court and the. prosecuting attorney were clearly mistaken in holding that the law permits a statement of the thief, made in the absence of defendant and not under circumstances binding on him, to be introduced against the receiver for the purpose of proving that the property was stolen. Such evidence is clearly hearsay. The case referred to by the circuit attorney, to-wit, State v. Smith, 37 Mo. 58, does seem, on casual reading, to hold as he stated;…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, together with Samuel Waghalter, for receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, to-wit, one box of clothing of *680the value of $740.50, from the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company.
A severance was granted and on his separate trial defendant was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for three years. From that sentence he appeals.
The facts are practically undisputed. On the 28th of July, 1901, the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, commonly known as the “Big…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Saunders v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1875
- People v. McCordMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Zink v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- People v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re WoodwardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- State v. SmithNevada Supreme Court · 1910
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- State v. LeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- State v. MintzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.