State v. Wall
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Stoddard. xh© indictment substantially sets forth the offence as described in the act creating it. It charges the defendant at &c., on &c., as a lawyer, being employed, did practice the law in part, for a livelihood, without license, &c. It is submitted, that this indictment sets forth to a reasonable intendment the facts constituting the offence, therefore the court erred in quashing it.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Stoddard. xh© indictment substantially sets forth the offence as described in the act creating it. It charges the defendant at &c., on &c., as a lawyer, being employed, did practice the law in part, for a livelihood, without license, &c. It is submitted, that this indictment sets forth to a reasonable intendment the facts constituting the offence, therefore the court erred in quashing it. In an indictment for a statute offence, it is sufficient if the offence is substantially set forth, though not in the exact words of the statute: U, S. vs. Bachelder, 2 Gallis. 15. In general, an…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryland, J.j
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant, Richard Wall, was indicted by the grand jury of Stoddard county at the September term of the circuit court, 1850, for practicing law for a livelihood, without first having obtained a license therefor, under the statute passed in February, 1847, entitled an “act t.o sustain the credit of the State.”
The defendants appeared a¿id moved the court to quash the indictment; which motion was sustained, and the circuit attorney excepted to the opinion of the court, but filed no bill of exceptions, and afterwards brings the case to this court…
2Cited by28 opinions
- State v. GriffinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Jefferson City v. OpelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- State v. VincentSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State v. BrennanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- State v. GeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.