State v. Hunnerwardle
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas H. Bacon, Judge. (1) The court erred in the instructions given for the state. The first instruction assumes that the fact that Iiagist had sowed a crop of wheat on defendant’s land entitled Hagist to the exclusive possession of the land. The relation of the parties to and the possession of the land ought to have been submitted to the jury-under the evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas H. Bacon, Judge. (1) The court erred in the instructions given for the state. The first instruction assumes that the fact that Iiagist had sowed a crop of wheat on defendant’s land entitled Hagist to the exclusive possession of the land. The relation of the parties to and the possession of the land ought to have been submitted to the jury-under the evidence. Bush v. Bush, 89 Mo. 360. The second instruction is clearly erroneous and not warranted by the law in directing a verdict of guilty, if Hagist owned an undivided part, and claimed it to…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This was a criminal information for a trespass and carrying away of personal property, under section 3593 of the Revised Statutes of 1889. This statute is as follows: “Every person who shall wilfully and maliciously or wantonly and without right, enter the premises of another, and cut, take away, destroy, injure or mutilate any fruit tree, ornamental or shade tree, shrub or vine, or who shall take or carry away any fruit, grapes, flowers, vegetables, grain, grass or hay being or growing thereon, or who shall wantonly and without right break or cut down, inj ure, take or carry away any portion…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Donnell v. HarsheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Stoneman v. Atlantic & Pacific R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Tubbs v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1834
- Oviatt v. SageSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
- Welch v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839