City of St. Louis v. Knox

• Decision Date: 31 October 1881
• Citation: 74 Mo. 79
• Parties: THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. KNOX, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

74 Mo. 79

THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS

v.KNOX, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1881.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. The case is reported in 6 Mo. App. 247.

AFFIRMED

The information was as follows:

“THE STATE OF MISSOURI,

)

)

ss.

The City of St. Louis,

)

Thomas Knox, to the city of St. Louis, Dr. to $200, for the violation of an ordinance in relation to stock yard proprietors, sale stables and horse and cattle dealers, being numbered 10367, section 2, approved September 7th, 1877, in this, to-wit: In the city of St. Louis, and State of Missouri, on the 14th day of March, 1878, and on divers other days and times between said day and the 7th day of September, 1877, the said Thomas Knox did then and there set up, establish and keep a sale stable and stock yard at premises number -- Broadway, in the city and State aforesaid, and did then and there stable horses and mules at the premises aforesaid, for the purpose of selling, bartering and trading in the same as a business, and did then and there sell, barter and trade horses and mules as aforesaid, without having paid for and obtained from the collector of said city a license therefor, contrary to the ordinance in such case made and provided. On information of Jacob Kurtzeborn.”

Andrew M. Sullivan and R. S. Macdonald for appellant.

The information is fatally defective, inasmuch as it charges the defendant with keeping both a sale stable and a stock yard; the license for the stock yard being $150, and the fine $300, whereas the license for the sale stable is $100, and the fine $200. Two misdemeanors, therefore, are joined in one complaint, and it cannot be ascertained except by implication upon which the defendant was convicted; hence, he would not be able to plead the record in bar to another prosecution. State v. Fisher, 58 Mo. 256; State v. Reaky, 62 Mo. 40. The information does not sufficiently state the circumstances necessary to create the misdemeanor, but the offense simply, in general words. St. Louis v. Fitz, 53 Mo. 582. There is no arraignment and no plea of not guilty shown in the record. State v. Billings, 72 Mo. 663.

Leverett Bell for respondent.

SHERWOOD, C. J.

Proceedings by information, by the the attorney of the plaintiff, against the defendant, for violation of an ordinance in relation to stock yard proprietors, sale stables, etc., the said Thomas having failed to take out a license as required by that ordinance. The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Counsel...