McDoland v. State
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Washington county. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. It does not appear, from the face or body of said indictment, when it was found, nor in what court, nor at what term of the court. — See Kirk vs. State, 6 Mo.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Washington county. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. It does not appear, from the face or body of said indictment, when it was found, nor in what court, nor at what term of the court. — See Kirk vs. State, 6 Mo. Rep., 469. Nor is said bill of indictment certified by the foreman of the grand jury, according to the directions of the statute. — See Digest 1835, p. 481, sec. 19. 2. There is no sufficient venue laid in said indictment. — See State vs. Grove, 1 Mo. Rep., 547; State vs. Palmer, 4 Mo. Rep., 453. 3. There is no offence known to the laws of this State,…
1Opinion of the CourtTompkins, Judge
Thomas McDonald was indicted for larceny at the February term of the Circuit Court of Washington county, in the year 1842. The indictment contained three counts. The defendant was found guilty, and, to reverse the judgment entered upon that finding, this writ is prosecuted. There was a motion in arrest of judgment, which the Circuit Court overruled.
For reversing the judgment, the following points are made:—
1. It does not appear, from the face or body of the indictment, when it was found; in what court, or at what term. — Reference to Kirk vs. State, 6 Mo. Rep., 469.
Said bill of indictment is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kirk v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1840
- State v. PalmerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1836
- Head v. PitzerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1825
- State v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1825
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. DanielsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Sawyer v. LorenzenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- State v. CraftSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901