138 S.W. 87 (Mo.App. 1911), In re McBride
|Citation:||138 S.W. 87, 158 Mo.App. 452|
|Opinion Judge:||NORTONI, J.|
|Party Name:||In re FRANK E. McBRIDE, Petitioner|
|Attorney:||T. J. Rowe and A. E. L. Gardner for petitioner. Edwin W. Mills, Amandus Brockmann and James W. Settle for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||NORTONI, J. Reynolds, P. J., and Caulfield, J., concur. Reynolds, P. J., and Caulfield, J., concur.|
|Case Date:||June 08, 1911|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Missouri|
[158 Mo.App. 453] Habeas Corpus.
This is an application in habeas corpus. The writ issued at the instance of petitioner, who set forth in his petition that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty by John Grueninger, Jr., sheriff of St. Louis county, Missouri, in the jail of that county, under a commitment of Division No. 2 of the circuit court thereof, for refusing to answer questions propounded to him by the grand jury and such circuit court. The questions which were propounded to petitioner and which he declined to answer are as follows:
"(1) Have you seen persons shooting craps for money on a table in brick building on northwest corner Delmar avenue and Suburban Railway tracks in University City, within the past twelve months?
"(2) Is such table maintained in said building for shooting craps on?
"(3) Who has charge of said table?
"(4) Do you know the names of any person or persons who play there?"
The petition avers that petitioner declined and refused to answer the questions above set forth, for the reason that to answer them would incriminate him, and he invokes the provisions of section 23, article 2 of the Constitution of Missouri in that behalf. Besides producing [158 Mo.App. 454] the body of the prisoner in obedience to the writ, respondent duly made and filed his return thereto in writing, in which he states he is the sheriff of St. Louis county, Missouri, and that as such officer the petitioner was given into his custody under a competent judgment and order of Division No. 2 of the circuit court of St. Louis county, whereby the petitioner was declared guilty of contempt for his refusal to answer the questions above set forth. In his return, respondent sets forth a copy of a commitment in due form under which he held the petitioner and by the authority of which he had committed him to jail. The commitment copied in the return is in regular form and recites that the petitioner had been adjudged guilty of contempt by Division No. 2...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP