State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 19 May 1908 |
| Citation | 111 S.W. 29,212 Mo. 130 |
| Parties | STATE v. BELL. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County J. H. Slover, Judge.
William H. Bell, alias J. W. Clark, was convicted of uttering a forged instrument, and he appeals Reversed and remanded for new trial.
A. E. Martin and L. N. Dempsey, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the criminal court of Jackson county from a conviction of uttering a forged instrument knowing the same to have been forged and counterfeited, and a sentence of five years in a penitentiary thereon.
The evidence and facts in this case are precisely the same as those appearing in the companion case of State v. Bell (already determined and handed down on this day) 111 S. W. 24, and it is therefore unnecessary to reproduce the same. The information is the same, except that in this case the forged instrument was of a different express money order, which was passed upon the firm of W. F. George & Co. The cause was tried by the court upon the same theory that was pursued in the other case, and the court made the same rulings in regard to the cross-examination of the wife of the defendant and the rulings as to the requirements of the hypothetical questions propounded to the experts called in behalf of the defendant. Those rulings, for the reasons given in State v. Bell, supra, must likewise be held to have been erroneous, and the cause must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Counsel for the defendant did not present the objection that the defendant had already been tried and convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary at a former term of the court, and therefore the court could not regularly put him upon trial at the April term, 1907, until he had either served his term of punishment under the conviction obtained at the January term, 1907, or that judgment had been reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial; but this is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Billings v. Rudolph
......Ex parte Meyer, 44 Mo. 279; State v. Watson, 95 Mo. 411; State v. Schierhoff, 105 Mo. 50; State v. Buck, 120 Mo. 479; State v. Wear, 145 Mo. 164; State v. Bell, 212 Mo. 130; State v. Barnes, 274 Mo. 628; State ex rel. Stevens v. Wurdeman, 295 Mo. 584. The only opinion of the Supreme Court in apparent conflict with the foregoing decisions is the case of State ex rel. Meininger v. Breuer, 304 Mo. 381, 264 S.W. 1. In this case Meininger applied for a writ of ......
-
State ex rel. Billings v. Rudolph
...... not be tried on a second charge after he had been sentenced. on a prior charge. Ex parte Meyer, 44 Mo. 279; State v. Watson, 95 Mo. 411; State v. Schierhoff, 105. Mo. 50; State v. Buck, 120 Mo. 479; State v. Wear, 145 Mo. 164; State v. Bell, 212 Mo. 130;. State v. Barnes, 274 Mo. 628; State ex rel. Stevens v. Wurdeman, 295 Mo. 584. The only opinion of. the Supreme Court in apparent conflict with the foregoing. decisions is the case of State ex rel. Meininger v. Breuer, 304 Mo. 381, 264 S.W. 1. In this case Meininger. applied for ......
-
Blitch v. Buchanan
... 131 So. 151 100 Fla. 1202 BLITCH, Superintendent of State Prison v. BUCHANAN. [ * ] Florida Supreme Court November 12, 1930 . . En. Banc. . . Error. to Circuit Court, Union ... imprisonment assessed against him, or the judgment has been. set aside or reversed. See, also, State v. Bell, 212. Mo. 130, 111 S.W. 29. . . Other. courts commenting upon the doctrine held by the Missouri. court have said: If the theory is ......
-
State v. Williams
...of the felonies, he cannot be sentenced for the commission of another felony committed prior to the first conviction. 13 C. J. 920; State v. Bell, 212 Mo. 130; Ex parte 44 Mo. 279; State v. Jolly, 96 Mo. 435; State v. Buck, 120 Mo. 479; Wartner v. State, 102 Ind. 51; Green v. United States,......