State v. Arter
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Johnson Criminal Court.—Hon. W. II. II. Hill, Judge. 1. The indictment charged that the defendant * * * did feloniously steal, take and carry away from the possession of one Mary Kreihn, one hunting case gold watch. It is simply an indictment in the usual form for grand larceny. 1 Wag. Stat. 456, Sec. 25. The instruction was founded on Sec. 45, p. 460, Wag. Stat., and was erroneous. Kelley’s Crim.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Johnson Criminal Court.—Hon. W. II. II. Hill, Judge. 1. The indictment charged that the defendant * * * did feloniously steal, take and carry away from the possession of one Mary Kreihn, one hunting case gold watch. It is simply an indictment in the usual form for grand larceny. 1 Wag. Stat. 456, Sec. 25. The instruction was founded on Sec. 45, p. 460, Wag. Stat., and was erroneous. Kelley’s Crim. Prac. 343. Where an indictment is founded on a statute creating an offense, all the ingredients that go to make up the offense as' defined by the statute, must be charged. 1 Arch. Or.…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
The evidence in this case tended to show that the watch alleged to have been stolen by the defendant had been lost and was found by the son of defendant, and by him taken to defendant’s house and laid upon a shelf or mantle with the statement that it had been found by him; that defendant took possession of it, carried it away, pawned it, subsequently redeemed it, and converted it to his own use. The indictment is framed under Sec. *65525, 1 Wag. Stat. 456, and is in the ordinary and usual form and sufficiently alleges everything necessary to constitute grand larceny under that section. The error…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. GabrielSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- State v. HarmonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. StoneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- State v. RoussinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1945
- State v. HarmonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891