State v. Webster
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Pulashi Circuit Court. — Hon. D. W. Shackleford, Judge. (1) There is no variance between the averments in the indictment and the proof as shown by the testimony. The check introduced in evidence was correctly described in the indictment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulashi Circuit Court. — Hon. D. W. Shackleford, Judge. (1) There is no variance between the averments in the indictment and the proof as shown by the testimony. The check introduced in evidence was correctly described in the indictment. State v. Bibb, 69 Mo. 286; State v. liarte, 137 Mo. 252; State v. Meyer, 82 Mo. 562; State v. Womack, 70 Mo. 410; State v. Sharp, 71 Mo. 218. (2) In his motion for a new trial, defendant alleges upon the part of the trial court error in failing to sustain his application for continuance. The granting or refusing of a continuance has always been…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
At the March term, 1896, of the circuit court of Pulaski county the defendant was indicted under section 3645, RevisedStatutesl 889, for unlawfully and feloniously selling and delivering toEvingtoncfc Company, a firm composed *89of Messrs. M. G. Evington, E. K. Morgan and A. P. Young,, a certain falsely añade, forged arad coaaaaterfeited clieek purportiaag to have beeaa aaaade aaad drawaa by one Lige Garrison upon the Caandeai Couaaty Baaak, a banking corporation duly orgaaaized aaad existiaag under the geaaeral laws of Missouri in favor of oaae Caliley Parrick, which said check was of the tenor…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. Le BeauSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- State v. TettatonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- State v. RiddleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- State v. CraftSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.