State v. Stobie

Citation92 S.W. 191,194 Mo. 14
PartiesSTATE ex rel. McNAMEE et al. v. STOBIE, Justice of the Peace, et al.
Decision Date26 February 1906
CourtUnited 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 Thereafter the act of 1861, as amended by Acts 1867 and supplemental acts, was repealed by Acts 1899, p. 53, section 5 of which was substantially a reenactment of section 5 of the act of 1861, and authorized the police boards to appoint and equip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.

Marshall and Valliant, JJ., dissenting.

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:

"Come now the relators herein, George T. McNamee, Patrick McKenna, Con Meehan, Patrick Kirk, Henry Meyer, Sydney Sears, John Kavanaugh, John McCarthy, Timothy Danaher, George Williams, Thomas Kelly, Frank McKenna, Gratiot Cabbanne, R. L. Killian, Hugh McFarland, James Burke, George Greely, Charles Madsen, and James Hunt, and give the court to understand and be informed that said relators are now, and were at all times hereinafter mentioned, citizens of the state of Missouri and residents of the city of St. Louis therein; that said relator George T. McNamee is now, and was at all of said times, a captain, the relator Patrick McKenna, a lieutenant, and each of the other relators a member of the metropolitan police force of the city of St. Louis, duly appointed, commissioned, and qualified as such, and are now officers of the state of Missouri; that respondent Frank Stobie was then, and still is, an acting justice of the peace of Central township of St. Louis county, in the state of Missouri, and Fred Lenz, constable of said township. Relators further give the court to understand and be informed:

"That Hon. Joseph W. Folk, Governor of the state of Missouri, by virtue of the authority vested in him by the Constitution and laws of the state of Missouri, on the 21st day of July, 1905, issued and delivered to Hon. A. C. Stewart, president of the board of police commissioners of said city of St. Louis, a communication in words and figures as follows, to wit: `Office of the Governor, State of Missouri, City of Jefferson, July 21, 1905. Hon. A. C. Stewart, President Board of Police Commissioners, St. Louis, Mo.— Dear Sir: Information having come to me that a state of lawlessness exists in St. Louis county; that men backed by millions of wealth and political influence are openly committing felonies by registering bets on horse races; that dramshop keepers in flagrant defiance of the statutes keep their places open on Sunday; that men are openly held up and robbed in the orgies and the general debauchery following the violations of this law; that gamblers ply their trade uninterrupted and scoff at the authority of the state; that the laws of the state are nullified and the statutes of the state trampled in the dust, and the honor of the state assailed without interference or hindrance; and that the local officials either cannot or will not uphold the laws there: Whereas, such conditions cannot be tolerated in Missouri; and, whereas, it is the sworn duty of the executive to execute the laws of the state; and, whereas, the metropolitan police force of the city of St. Louis is by the scheme separating the city and county, which was voted upon by the people of the whole county in accordance with the Constitution, given the same jurisdiction in the county as in the city; and, whereas, the Governor, as the supreme conservator of the peace throughout the state, has the right to call on the metropolitan police force, as a part of the military arm of the state, to preserve peace and order and suppress outlawry: Now, therefore, in order to maintain the peace and dignity of the state and to preserve the majesty of the laws of the state, you are hereby directed to instruct the chief of police of the city of St. Louis to detail fifty officers or more for duty in St. Louis county, with orders to proceed, with all convenient speed, to Delmar race track in said county of St. Louis, and there arrest any and all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
85 cases
  • State ex rel. v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 17 Marzo 1928
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 2 Marzo 1943
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 25 Febrero 1938
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 3 Febrero 1934
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT