State v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1852 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. HENDERSON & POWERS. |
ERROR TO NEWTON CIRCUIT COURT.
GARDENHIRE, Attorney-General, for The State, cited: 18th section of 5th article of act concerning Crimes and Punishments, Rev. Stat. 381: 3 Chitty's Cr. L. 831; 2 ibid. 144-5, note a, in which it is said that it is not necessary to state that the party to be arrested was guilty of any offense or owed any debt, or that any affidavit of debt was made. 3 Term R. 185.
The defendants, John Henderson and Joseph Powers, were indicted at the April term, 1850, of the Circuit Court for the county of Newton, for opposing the execution of civil process. The defendants entered their appearance to the indictment, and moved the court to quash it. This motion the court sustained, and the State, by the circuit attorney, excepted, filed her bill of exceptions and brings the case here by writ of error. The sufficiency of the indictment is the only point before us. This indictment alleges “that John Henderson and Joseph Powers, late of said county, heretofore, to-wit: on the 28th day of October, A. D. 1849, at the county of Newton and State of Missouri, with force and arms did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and willfully oppose one Isaac Gibson, a constable of Neosho township, Newton county, Missouri, in his official duties as such; to-wit: in the execution of a writ of attachment issued by one Mark A. Garrison, a justice of the peace for said county and township, against the property of one James Boyd, in favor of one Lemuel Heanell, contrary,” &c.
This indictment is framed under the 18th section, 5th article of the act concerning Crimes and Punishments, Digest 1845, which declares “if any person or persons shall knowingly and willfully obstruct, resist or oppose any sheriff, or any other ministerial officer in the service or execution, or in the attempt to serve or execute any writ, warrant or process, original or judicial, or in the discharge of any other duty in any case civil or criminal, other than felony, or in the service or attempt to serve any order or rule of court in any case, every person so offending, shall on conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor and be punished,” &c. The objections urged below to the indictment are, that no offense is charged with that certainty that is required by law, and that the indictment, on its face, is defective and insufficient. We think the objections are well taken, and that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Rowlen
...same instrument. The mortgage must be set out in the indictment to inform the court of the legal effect of a release of the same. State v. Henderson, 15 Mo. 486. (2) The court should have sustained the demurrer to the evidence. The said real estate being in the state of Kansas, delivery of ......
-
State v. Estis
...between the warrant as set out and as proven, are fatal. Rex v. Beech, 1 Leach Cr. C. 158; 1 Bishop Crim. Proced., § 311; State v. Henderson, 15 Mo. 486. 3. The court erred in refusing to allow witness Smith Story to answer question in regard to previous threats of parties against defendant......
-
State v. Ostmann
...as was done in the present instance, in order that the court may see if it was of a kind the officer had a right to execute. State v. Henderson, 15 Mo. 486. The information in all its charging clauses speaks of the process as an execution, and appellants insist those averments were so repug......
-
State v. Ostmann
...as was done in the present instance, in order that the court may see if it was a kind the officer had a right to execute. [State v. Henderson, 15 Mo. 486.] information in all its charging clauses speaks of the process as an execution, and appellants insist these averments were so repugnant ......