Gordon v. State
| Citation | 4 Mo. 375 |
| Parties | GORDON v. THE STATE. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1836 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
BRYAN MULLANPHY, for Plaintiff in Error. The defendant, William Gordon, insists on the following points, as establishing error in the admission in evidence by the court of the paper purporting to be a letter from James B. Bowlin to James Brotherton: 1st. That the said paper purporting to be a letter, varies from the letter set out in the indictment. The defendant William Gordon, relies upon the following point, as establishing error in the admission in evidence by the court, of the irritated state of feeling between James B. Bowlin and James Brotherton, at the time at which the letter set forth in the indictment is charged to have been sent. 2nd. That the acts done as charged in the indictment, are all that the State had a right to offer in evidence. The state of feeling between third persons, was no part of the evidence of the State. If in a case of a duel or challenge, the feelings of the principals were not hostile, and the challenge were a joke, that is matter of defense. Then in rebuttal, if at all, the State might have introduced the irritated state of feeling, &c.
The defendant insists upon the following points, as establishing error, in the Circuit Court's refusing to set aside the verdict of the jury and to grant defendant a new trial. 1st. That the evidence adduced to the jury, besides the deficiencies and vices already pointed out, was defective in the following points: 1. There is no evidence of a scienter, to-wit, of Gordon's knowledge of the contents of the paper, he appears to have handed to James Brotherton. 2. There is no venue proved. The defendant relies on the following points, as establishing error in the refusal of the court to arrest the judgment. 1. That in the indictment the malice or scienter is charged to be at the time of bearing, not delivering the letter and paper writing described in the indictment. 2. That there is no sufficient description in the indictment of the offense charged. 3. The delivery of the challenge is nowhere charged in the indictment.
Gordon, the plaintiff in error, was indicted in the St. Louis Circuit Court for bearing a challenge to fight a duel, contrary to the statute, &c. The venue was changed to Franklin county, where on a trial in the Circuit Court, there was a verdict and judgment against Gordon, to reverse which judgment, he now prosecutes his writ of error in this court. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schatt
... ... jurisdiction of the court where the proceeding, on account of ... the infraction of the law, originated, otherwise the ... prosecution will fail. This is true for the reason neither ... intendment nor presumption of law will go in aid of and to ... supply this jurisdictional fact. [ Gordon v. State, 4 ... Mo. 375; State v. Burns, 48 Mo. 438.] However, the ... law is reasonable and just with respect to this, as it is in ... all other matters, and therefore the courts have determined ... that inasmuch as the question of venue or jurisdiction over ... an offense is one of fact, ... ...
-
State v. Schatt
...This is true for the reason neither intendment nor presumption of law will go in aid of and to supply this jurisdictional fact. Gordon v. State, 4 Mo. 375; State v. Burns, 48 Mo. 438. However, the law is reasonable and just with respect to this, as it is in all other matters, and therefore ......
-
State v. Knowles
...that the offense of which the prisoner is convicted was committed within the jurisdiction of the court. State v. Burns, 48 Mo. 438; Gordon v. State, 4 Mo. 375; State v. McGinniss, 74 Mo. 246; State Schuerman, 70 Mo.App. 518; State v. Sauerburg, 64 Mo.App. 129; State v. Tissing, 74 Mo. 72; S......
-
State v. Hecox
...Ed.) § 245; Reg. v. Reed, 28 E. L. & E. 133. (3) There was entire failure of proof of venue, which is fatal to the State's case. Gordon v. State, 4 Mo. 375; State v. Meyer, 64 Mo. 190; State v. Miller, 71 Mo. 89; State v. Burgess, 75 Mo. 541. (4) The court erred in giving instructions numbe......