City of Plattsburg v. Smarr
| Decision Date | 01 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 13318.,13318. |
| Citation | 216 S.W. 538 |
| Parties | CITY OF PLATTSBURG v. SMARR. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; Alonzo D. Burnes, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Hampton Smarr was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Plattsburg, and on appeal to the circuit court he was again convicted, and again appeals. Affirmed.
F. B. Ellis, of Plattsburg, for appellant.
W. S. Herndon, of Plattsburg, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted in the mayor's court of the city of Plattsburg, Mo., for the violation of an ordinance of that city. He was again convicted on his appeal to the circuit court. The facts show that on the night of September 6, 1918, the prosecuting witness, a girl 15 years of age, with another girl, had been to a picture show in Plattsburg. They left the show between 8:30 and 9 o'clock. The defendant, who was but little more than a stranger to the girls, followed them, and at a dark place in the street passed them, and, standing in front of the prosecuting witness, while holding out his hand with some money therein, asked her "if she wanted to make some money." She replied, "No, sir; I don't; if I did, I would make it;" and told him, "What do you want to stop a girl like me for on the street?" and defendant replied that "he didn't have any sense." To this the girl stated, "You surely don't, or you wouldn't try to get me to take money." She told him that she would have him arrested that same night, and she and her companion looked up a police officer, resulting in defendant's arrest.
On the following day the prosecuting witness swore to the following complaint, upon which he was tried:
"Rose Simpson, aged 15 years, being sworn, on her oath states that on the 6th day of September, 1918, at the county of Clinton and state of Missouri, and within the corporate limits of the city of Plattsburg, one Hampton Smarr did then and there unlawfully and willfully disturb the peace and quiet of this affiant by then and there using to her, the said affiant, indecent, insulting, and offensive language, and by then and there making an indecent proposal to this affiant, in violation of the provision of section 143 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Plattsburg, 1910, the same being section 17 of General Ordinance No. 131 of the said city, and against the peace and dignity of the city of Plattsburg."
Plaintiff is a city of the fourth class. By virtue of sections 9371, 9372, R. S. 1909, it has the right to enact ordinances to prohibit disturbances of the peace. It is urged by the defendant that the ordinance is invalid, defendant contending that the things therein made unlawful do not constitute a disturbance of the peace within the meaning of the statute. The ordinance was introduced in evidence, but is not preserved in the bill of exceptions; therefore it is not before us for review. City of Billings v. Brown, 106 Mo. App. 240, 80 S. W. 322.
Defendant urges that the court erred in not sustaining his motion to quash the information on the ground that the information failed to state any offense. The ordinance not appearing in the bill of exceptions, the point made is not well taken, unless the complaint is plainly defective in describing an act or acts that could not be made subject to punishment by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Graham
...S.W.2d 76; State v. Reynolds, Mo.App., 274 S.W.2d 514; refer to note 12.10 State v. Little, Mo.App., 287 S.W. 809.11 City of Plattsburg v. Smarr, Mo.App., 216 S.W. 538; City of Cape Girardeau v. Bennett, Mo.App., 27 S.W.2d 447; see 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations Secs. 137 and 138, p......
-
City of St Louis v. Hellscher
...the validity of the ordinance, if the information charges the commission of acts which the city has power to prohibit. City of Plattsburg v. Smarr, 216 S.W. 538. (5) appellant by causing the distribution of cards holding himself out as possessing supernatural powers, such as calling a perso......
-
State v. Coomes
...v. State, 166 Ga. 645, 144 S.E. 193; Miles v. State, 30 Okl.Cr. 302, 236 P. 57, 44 A.L.R. 129; State v. Long, supra; City of Plattsburg v. Smarr, Mo.App., 216 S.W. 538; State v. White, 18 R.I. 473, 28 A. 968; State v. McCoy, 99 Ohio App. 161, 131 N.E.2d 679; State v. Wixon, 118 Vt. 495, 114......
-
City of St. Louis v. Pope, 25100.
...112; City of St. Louis v. Bippen, 201 Mo. 528, 100 S.W. 1048; City of St. Louis v. Ameln, 235 Mo. 669, 139 S.W. 429; City of Plattsburg v. Small, Mo.App., 216 S.W. 538. For the failure noted above to comply with the statutory requirements as to the manner of taking this appeal, the appeal s......