State v. Stobie
Citation | 92 S.W. 191,194 Mo. 14 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. McNAMEE et al. v. STOBIE, Justice of the Peace, et al. |
Decision Date | 26 February 1906 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
policemen for duty in the outskirts and open portions of the city, and "elsewhere in the city and county of St. Louis." Thereafter, St. Louis city charter was enacted, section 14 of which declared that the metropolitan police of the city of St. Louis should have the same power and jurisdiction in the county of St. Louis as constituted by the scheme, "as now provided by law"; provided that certain policemen might be equipped for duty in the county (Rev. St. 1899, p. 2467). Thereafter the act of 1861, as amended by Acts 1867 and supplemental acts, was repealed by Acts 1899, p. 53, section 5 of which was substantially a reenactment of section 5 of the act of 1861, and authorized the police boards to appoint and equip policemen deemed necessary for duty in the parks, outskirts, and such other portions of the city as the board might deem necessary. Held, that members of the police force of the city of St. Louis had no jurisdiction to arrest offenders outside the city limits for offenses committed in St. Louis county.
9. PROHIBITION—GROUNDS.
Where members of the metropolitan police force of the city of St. Louis had no jurisdiction to arrest offenders outside the city for violating the gaming laws of the state, in St. Louis county, the fact that members of such police force, forcibly entering the grounds of a racing association in such county outside the city limits for the purpose of effecting such arrest, had authority to so act in their capacity as private citizens, was no ground for the issuance of a writ of prohibition prohibiting a justice of the peace from assuming jurisdiction of a prosecution of such policemen for forcibly entering the racing association's inclosure.
10. SAME—PURPOSE OF PROSECUTION.
Where certain policemen were arrested for forcibly entering the close of a racing association outside the limits of their jurisdiction, for the purpose of arresting certain gamblers, the fact that the criminal charge against such policemen was solely for the purpose of hindering, impeding, and obstructing them in the performance of their duty as policemen and as officers and citizens of the state, and to protect from arrest the persons engaged at the race track in violating the law, was no ground for the issuance of prohibition to restrain the further prosecution of the proceedings against such officers.
In Banc. Application for writ of prohibition, on relation of George T. McNamee and others, against Frank Stobie, justice of the peace of Central township, St. Louis county, and others. Writ denied.
This is an original proceeding in this court. It is a petition or application by relators addressed to this court asking for the issuance of a writ of prohibition. The petition was filed by the relators on July 28, 1905, and the grounds for relief and the particular relief sought are thus plainly stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. v. City of St. Louis
... ... 83, 88 S.W. 41; State ex rel. v. Police Commissioners, 184 Mo. 139, 71 S.W. 215, 1133. 88 S.W. 27; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 76 (discussing the objects in view in adopting the St. Louis Charter); State ex inf. v. Lindell Ry., 151 Mo. 182, 52 S.W. 248 (same); State ex rel. v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14, 92 S.W. 191 (see discussion as to St. Louis Scheme and Charter in both majority and dissenting opinions); State ex rel. v. Kimmel, 256 Mo. 611, 165 S.W. 1067.] ... "Hence, and also because the power of the Legislature to supersede or modify the charter or ordinance ... ...
-
State ex rel. Brickey v. Nolte, 38252.
...State ex rel. Elam v. Henson, 217 S.W. 17; State ex rel. Warde v. McQuillin, 262 Mo. 256, 171 S.W. 72; State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14, 92 S.W. 191; Wand v. Ryan, 166 Mo. 646, 65 S.W. 1025; State ex rel. Laclede Bank v. Lewis, 76 Mo. 370; In re Bowman, 67 Mo. 146; 4 Houts, Misso......
-
American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley, 34629.
... ... Whether the pleading by which the case is presented justifies the relief prayed (or any relief, for that matter) is not the test. State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, 334 Mo. 713, 67 S.W. (2d) 981; State ex rel. Union Depot Ry. Co. v. Valliant, 100 Mo. 61, 13 S.W. 398; Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 182, 78 S.W. 1020; State ex rel. Term. Railroad Assn. v. Tracy, 237 Mo. 121, 140 S.W. 888; State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14, 92 S.W. 191; State ex rel. Delmar Jockey Club v. Zachritz, 166 Mo. 307, 65 S.W. 999; State ex rel. Hofmann v. Scarritt, 128 S.W. 340, 30 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Leake v. Harris
... ... Speaking to a like question in State ex rel. v. Stobie, 194 Mo. 14, 46, 92 S.W. 191, we said: ... "For instance, where a court has jurisdiction to render judgments, in ordinary civil causes, it would be manifestly improper to issue a writ of prohibition against it on an application alleging that it was about to pronounce such a judgment ... ...