State v. Acuff
| Decision Date | 31 October 1839 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ACUFF. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ABERNATHY, for Plaintiff. 1st. That the act charged is an indictable offense. 2nd. That if the act charged is indictable, it is sufficiently and properly charged in the indictment. Authorities cited, in support of first point, Rev. Code, 297, 9th section, article 8; 4 Mo. R. 567, Groce v. Zumwalt.
HOWELL, for Defendant. There is no error. 1st. Because said act was intended to embrace the case of guardians only, who had the care and custody of their wards under the age of eighteen years, and guardians of lunatics, idiots or other kind of wards, except white ones. 2. Because it never could have been intended to protect only white females under the age of eighteen years, and leave all other kind of females, who may and have under our laws guardians, defenseless and unprotected; and 3. Because the act, on which this indictment is intended to be on grafted, cannot be made to embrace the case charged and set out in the indictment without being partly rejected (See Mo. Laws, 207), which will never be done when sense can be made of a statute as it stands; and further because said statute is perfectly sensible and intelligible as it stands, and effect to a very good purpose may be given to every part of it. Other guardians than those of white females under the age of eighteen years may be appointed, see title, Insane Persons, Mo. L. 323, all of whom would be unprotected, if the construction be given that is contended for by the State.
Acuff was indicted in the Circuit Court, and on his motion the indictment was quashed, and, to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court quashing the indictment, the State prosecutes this writ of error. The judgment charges that Hannah M. Davis was confided to the care and protection of one Grenville P. Acuff, by John Davis, the father and natural guardian of the said Hannah, she, the said Hannah, being then, &c., a white female under the age of eighteen years, &c. The indictment is framed on the 9th section of the 8th article of the act concerning crimes and their punishments, found on page 207 of the Digest of 1835. The words of the ninth section are as follow, viz: “If any guardian of any white female under the age of eighteen years, or of any other person to whose care or protection any such female shall have been confided, shall defile her by carnally knowing her, he shall, in cases in this act not otherwise provided for, be punished by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
...v. Reynolds, 13 Iowa, 310;Paxton, etc., Co. v. Farmers', etc., Co., 45 Neb. 884, 64 N. W. 343, 29 L. R. A. 853, 50 Am. St. Rep. 585;State v. Acuff, 6 Mo. 54;State v. Beasley, 5 Mo. 91. [11] Neither is it true that the words “proper,” “properly,” or “efficient” are relative terms. They may i......
-
State v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
......222;. Cooper v. Metzger (1881), 74 Ind. 544;. Trinity County v. Polk County (1883), 58. Tex. 321; Leversee v. Reynolds (1862), 13. Iowa 310; Paxton & Hershey, etc., Co. v. Farmers, etc., Irrigation Co. (1895), 45 Neb. 884,. 64 N.W. 343, 50 Am. St. 585, 29 L. R. A. 853; State. v. Acuff (1839), 6 Mo. 54; State v. Beasley (1837), 5 Mo. 91. . . Neither. is it true that the words "proper,". "properly" or "efficient" are relative. terms. They may in some connections be definite and specific. terms when used in connection with a definite subject-matter;. as ......
-
St. Louis v. Dorr
......Louis is erroneous. (3) The boulevard law is. constitutional. (4) At the outset it is proper to bear in. mind that there is no city in the State of Missouri organized. under the laws of this State in reference to cities of the. first class, and comparatively few cities in the State that. ... . . This. course of construction has been pursued in this State ever. since State v. Beasley , 5 Mo. 91; State v. Acuff , 6 Mo. 54; State to use v. . Heman , 70 Mo. 441; Bingham v. Birmingham ,. 103 Mo. 345, 15 S.W. 533, in which last case eight. words were ......
-
The State ex rel. City of Chillicothe v. Wilder
...be stricken out of a statute in constructing it in order to harmonize its entire provisions. Bingham v. Birmingham, 103 Mo. 345; State v. Acuff, 6 Mo. 54. The construction of constitutional amendment must not be so strict or technical as to defeat the evident object and purpose of its creat......