Lorton v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1841 |
| Citation | 7 Mo. 55 |
| Parties | LORTON v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE ST. LOUIS CRIMINAL COURT.
T. T. GANTT, for Appellant. 1st. That the stealing of goods at different times, of the value of 4d., 6d. and 3d., was punishable at common law as grand larceny. 1 Hawk. P. of the C. ch. 33, § 33. That if this severity was seldom practiced, it was because of the rigor of such proceeding. Ibid. That consolidation was a favorite principle of common law, both in civil and criminal cases, and that in the latter it was always adhered to, when unopposed by considerations of humanity. Ibid. 2nd. That if the goods of several persons are stolen at the same time, the circumstance of different ownerships does not change the offense, in contemplation either of law or morality; and that if there be but one transaction there should be but one indictment, there being but one felony, every branch of which was punishable by one prosecution, one indictment, and one sentence. 3 Chitty's Crim. Law, 960; 4 Carrington & Payne, 386, Rex v. Birdseye. 3rd. That a former conviction and sentence is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same felony. 1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 462, 463.4th. That unless the court is prepared to say that the stealing of several different articles from the same person at the same time can be made the subject of several indictments, the proposition that the circumstance of several ownerships does not entitle the prosecutor to change so entirely the duration and extent of the punishment, would seem to rest upon principles of policy and justice, and to be resisted by no considerations of general or particular mischief. 5th. That the enlarged discretion which the doctrine contended for and adjudged below would rest in the prosecutor, would inflict upon the prisoner a punishment graded rather to his caprice and power than by the fixed provisions of law. That such enlargement is contrary to the spirit of our laws and institutions in every case, but above all in criminal proceedings.
BENT, Circuit Attorney, for the State. That larceny of goods of several owners, taken at the same time, may be joined, is not denied; and that when the goods of several are mixed together, as a number of files lying in the corner of the shop, belonging to different persons, they cannot be severed, is true. But when two persons are sleeping in one room in a hotel, their clothes lying on separate chairs, the thief or thieves enter and take the clothes of both, the larceny...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Citius
...on the charge of robbing A.A. Polk or of robbing Nellie Polk. The ruling of the trial court was not error. In the early case of Lorton v. State, 7 Mo. 55, appellant Lorton was charged in separate indictments with the theft of personal property of one Curle and also of one Gibson. He was cau......
-
State v. Citius
...on the charge of robbing A. A. Polk or of robbing Nellie Polk. The ruling of the trial court was not error. In the early case of Lorton v. State, 7 Mo. 55, Lorton was charged in separate indictments with the theft of personal property of one Curle and also of one Gibson. He was caught in a ......
-
State v. Bowles
...an offense piecemeal. State v. Chambers, 524 S.W.2d 826, 828 (Mo. banc 1975); State v. Treadway, supra, 558 S.W.2d at 651; Lorton v. State, 7 Mo. 55 (1841); State v. Morphin, 37 Mo. 373 (1866)--stealing several In determining whether several charges resulting from one act or transaction may......
-
The State v. O'Connell
...aggregate. State v. Monk, 40 Ohio St. 558; State v. Brew, 4 Wash. 95; State v. Thompson, 43 Tex. 268; State v. Beatty, 90 Mo. 143; State v. Lorton, 7 Mo. 55; State Daniels, 32 Mo. 558; State v. Morphin, 37 Mo. 337; State v. Wilson, 45 Tex. 77. (6) The only necessary requirement to constitut......