State v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 24 November 1908
• Citation: 113 S.W. 1051,214 Mo. 392
• Parties: STATE v. CARROLL et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

113 S.W. 1051

214 Mo. 392

STATE v. CARROLL et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 24, 1908.

1. ROBBERY (§ 18) — ATTEMPTED ROBBERY — INFORMATION — SUFFICIENCY.

An information alleging that accused assaulted prosecutor, and by force and violence to his person, and by putting him in fear of injury, feloniously attempted to rob, steal, and carry away the personal property of prosecutor from his person, against his will, with intent to deprive the prosecutor of his property, is sufficient as against the objection that it does not charge an intent to deprive the owner of his property without his consent.

2. ROBBERY (§ 4) — ATTEMPTED ROBBERY — OWNERSHIP.

A manager or agent of a company having possession of its money has a sufficient ownership thereof to support an allegation of ownership in him in an information for attempted robbery.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Hugo Muench, Judge.

Edward Carroll and another were convicted of attempted robbery, and they appeal. Affirmed.

This cause is here upon appeal by the defendants from a judgment in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis convicting them of the offense of attempted robbery in the first degree. The offense upon which the judgments are predicated was thus charged in an information filed by the assistant circuit attorney:

"State of Missouri, City of St. Louis — ss.: Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, December Term, 1906. Richard M. Johnson, assistant circuit attorney, in and for the city of St. Louis aforesaid, within and for the body of the city of St. Louis, on behalf of the state of Missouri, upon his official oath, information makes as follows: That Edward Carroll and Edward Gleason on the twenty-first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and six, at the city of St. Louis aforesaid, with force and arms in and upon T. P. Hoxey, violently and feloniously did make an assault, and by force and violence to his person, and by putting him in fear of immediate injury to his person, did then and there violently and feloniously attempt to rob, steal, take and carry away the money and personal property of him, the said T. P. Hoxey, from his person and in the presence and against his will with the intent then and there to permanently deprive the owner of the use thereof and to convert the same to their own use, and in such attempt did then and there violently and feloniously strike the said T. P. Hoxey with a billy, and did then and there violently and feloniously with a pistol, loaded with gunpowder and leaden ball, shoot and wound the said T. P. Hoxey, in and upon the head and body of the said T. P. Hoxey, but did then and there fail in the accomplishment of such robbery, against the peace and dignity of the state. Rich. M. Johnson, Assistant Circuit Attorney.

"State of Missouri, City of St. Louis — ss.: Richard M. Johnson being duly sworn, upon his oath, says that the statements made in the foregoing information are true. Rich. M. Johnson.

"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of January, 1907. Adolph Nast, Clerk of the Circuit Court, City of St. Louis (for Criminal Causes)."

To this information the defendants entered their pleas of not guilty, and on April 3, 1907, they were put upon their trial. The evidence upon the part of the state tended substantially to prove the following state of facts: That what is known as the Buss Mill was located at No. 7550 North Broadway, in the city of St. Louis, Mo., and that T. P. Hoxey was the manager and cashier of said mill and the person in charge of its property and money, and that in a small safe in the office of that mill, under the care and in his custody, on the 21st day of December, 1906, there was $440, the property of the J. B. Buss Mills. Conrad Hart, aged about 19 years, testified that for 8 or 10 years he had been acquainted with the defendants, who were about his age. He said that in the fall of 1906 he had been out in California with the defendant Gleason, and had talked several times with Gleason on the subject of robbing the Buss Mill, where Gleason told him there was lots of easy money for them to get when they returned to St. Louis. Early in December Hart returned to St. Louis and met the defendants, but nothing further was said about the suggested robbery until the day before the attempt was made, when Gleason asked Hart to go out to the Buss Mill, and said that the money was easy to get. The next morning Gleason met Hart again and arranged for a meeting between Hart, Gleason, and defendant Carroll at a later hour that morning. Pursuant to appointment, Hart met the defendants about 10:30 a. m., each, according to arrangements, having brought with him his overcoat. None of them had any money, and the overcoats were brought for the purpose of pawning them in order to raise money with which to buy revolvers and ammunition and carry out the plan of robbery. They visited several pawnshops and pawned the overcoats of Hart and Carroll, thereby raising $7. Gleason kept his overcoat. With the money thus obtained they visited stores, and Hart and Carroll each bought a cheap revolver and some ammunition. About noon they ate and drank together, and soon afterwards took a car on the way to the mill on North Broadway. Hart said that while on the way they talked over the plan by which the robbery would be effected, Gleason, he said, doing most of the talking. The plan was to approach the mill on foot, Hart and Gleason to enter the office and Carroll to remain outside, to which Carroll agreed, and said that he would be outside while they went in, and if there was any fighting he would come running right over. The plan contemplated was that Gleason and Hart would enter the office, pretending to be employer and employé, and ask the use of the telephone, and, on the pretext of sending Hart for a fixture, they were to ask to have a $2 bill changed, and thereby secure access to the money in the mill safe. About three blocks from the mill they left the car, and took a drink in a saloon, where they were seen by witness Joseph Conway. From the saloon they walked to the mill, Hart and Gleason walking on the east side of Broadway, on which side was the mill, and Carroll, according to plan, following on the west side of that street. Gleason was wearing his overcoat, and had with him for a weapon a billy, which was a short piece of leather with a knob and having a strap for wrapping around the hand.

The testimony of Hart, T. P. Hoxey, and Pat O'Neill tended to prove that Hoxey and O'Neill were sitting in the office when Hart and Gleason entered. Gleason asked the privilege of using the telephone, which was in the office, and, being permitted to do so, he called up a plumbers' supply company and talked about a fixture, or piece of fitting, for which he was going to send, and, as he hung up the telephone, he turned to Hart and asked whether Hart had money for the car fare. Hart replied that he had not, whereupon Gleason asked Hoxey if he...