City of St. Louis v. Smith
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Criminal Court. 1. The charge of the City Attorney is sufficient to enable the defendant to understand distinctly what he was called upon to defend. 2. He is charged with violating the provisions of a certain ordinance, the title oí which is given, and the day stated upon which it was approved.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Criminal Court. 1. The charge of the City Attorney is sufficient to enable the defendant to understand distinctly what he was called upon to defend. 2. He is charged with violating the provisions of a certain ordinance, the title oí which is given, and the day stated upon which it was approved. The name of the officer is stated; the particular office he held is set out; and the offence declared to be an attempt to rescue from said officer a person in his custody as a prisoner; and the penalty prescribed by the ordinance is correctly stated.— Now it seems impossible that…
1Opinion of the CourtMcBride, J.
The City of St. Louis brought her action of debt before the Recorder of said city, against the defendant, on the following complaint:—
“ State of Missouri, City of St. Louis, A. D. 1846. John Smith, To the City of St. Louis, Dr.
To one hundred dollars, for this, to-wit: He, the said Smith, was, in the city of St. Louis, on and between the 1st day of January, eighteen hundred and forty-six, and the 20th day of April, eighteen hundred and forty-six, guilty df a breach and violation of an ordinance of the said city of St. Louis entitled “An ordinance for the punishment of persons obstructing or…
2Cited by5 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. SternbergSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Kansas City v. StricklinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- City of St. Louis v. EskridgeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1972
- Inhabitants of Memphis v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- City of Springfield v. FordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890