Ex parte Brown
Supreme Court of Missouri
Habeas Corpus. 1. There was no fact stated in the application for tbe subpoena duees tecum, or in the subpoena prayed for, or in the report of the grand jury, upon which the commitment issued, tending to show : 1st, That the papers called for were in existence. 2nd, That if in existence, they were necessary evidence in any matter pending before the grand jury. 3rd, That if in existence, they were relevant, or material, or competent evidence in any matter pending before the…
Read the full summary
Habeas Corpus. 1. There was no fact stated in the application for tbe subpoena duees tecum, or in the subpoena prayed for, or in the report of the grand jury, upon which the commitment issued, tending to show : 1st, That the papers called for were in existence. 2nd, That if in existence, they were necessary evidence in any matter pending before the grand jury. 3rd, That if in existence, they were relevant, or material, or competent evidence in any matter pending before the grand jury. 2. The subpoena required the production of all the telegrams which had passed between the pai’ties named,…
1Opinion of the CourtHenry, J.
In the St. Louis criminal court, at the November term, 1879, a subpoena duces tecum was issued by the clerk of said court, commanding the petitioner to appear before the grand jury on the 17th day of November, 1879, to testify in a certain matter pending before said *90inquest, and then and there to produce any or all telegraphic dispatches, or messages, or copies of the same, then in the office of the Yfestern Union Telegraph Company at St. Louis, Missouri, of which the petitioner was manager, described as follows : Dispatches between Dr. J. 0. Nidelet and A. B. Wakefield, and William Ladd and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. LitchfieldSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1870
- Ex parte BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
3Cited by27 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Miller v. O'MalleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- State Ex Rel. Schlueter Manufacturing Co. v. BeckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- American Car & Foundry Co. v. Alexandria Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Ex parte ArnoldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Imparato v. SpicolaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.